is the dual core worth it?

[mechBgon]

LOOK OUT THE WINDOW!! :Q OMG I THINK IT'S THE FED-EX TRUCK!!!

*quickly slips sedatives into everyones' beverages, peace guys*

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

And that would be the stupidest thing in the world to do, buy a dual-core and disable use of the second core.

This comment has absolutely nothing to do with your original incorrect claim:

In the first place, there is no way to disable the second core

Furthermore you attempted to project that you somehow have more knowledge about the issue because you own an X2 system even though you are blatantly wrong.

Then maybe its something you would do....

I get the feeling I'm arguing with a 12 year old whose daddy just purchased him a X2 system and he can't bear someone pointing our reality.

You mean the windows HAL? Last I knew, it's VERY difficult to change that without reinstall

AFAIK you can switch between uniprocessor and multiprocessor without too much fuss as long as you stick to the same type (e.g ACPI -> ACPI).

First my statement is correct, you can't disable the second core in bios. As far as your 12 year old comment goes, thats what I thought of you, but I was trying to keep the discussion civil. And as several other posters have backed up my statements you are the onle who is in error, but apparantly won't give in to reality.

The the OP, I give up, as you can't argue with morons on the internet, so look at the majority that have data to back up their claims, and those that own them, and don't use terms like 'AFAIK'.

I am done with this thread.

 

[imported_drx]

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: BFG10K

And that would be the stupidest thing in the world to do, buy a dual-core and disable use of the second core.

This comment has absolutely nothing to do with your original incorrect claim:

In the first place, there is no way to disable the second core

Furthermore you attempted to project that you somehow have more knowledge about the issue because you own an X2 system even though you are blatantly wrong.

Then maybe its something you would do....

I get the feeling I'm arguing with a 12 year old whose daddy just purchased him a X2 system and he can't bear someone pointing our reality.

You mean the windows HAL? Last I knew, it's VERY difficult to change that without reinstall

AFAIK you can switch between uniprocessor and multiprocessor without too much fuss as long as you stick to the same type (e.g ACPI -> ACPI).

Firstmy my statement is correct, you can't disable the second core in bios. As far as you 12 year old comment goes, thats what I thought of you, but I was trying to keep the discussion civil. And as several other posters have backed up my statements you are the onle who is in error, but apparantly won't give in to reality.

The the OP, I give up, as you can't argue with morons on the internet, so look at the majority that have data to back up their claims, and those that own them, and don't use terms like 'AFAIK'.

I am done with this thread.

Go ahead and leave but you're still wrong. I don't care what you think should logically make sense. Faster clocked single core processors outperform dual core processors in games. Just because you and all of your misinformed friends think otherwise doesn't make you any more correct.

And on the issue of civility, I believe it was you who started the name calling by calling me a "noob," so you can jump down off your horse now, thanks.

 

[BFG10K]

First my statement is correct, you can't disable the second core in bios.

No, this is your original statement:

In the first place, there is no way to disable the second core

It's a blanket and concrete claim that the second core cannot be disabled, which is wrong.

As for the BIOS, yeah, technically it's more of a HAL issue but if you changed the ACPI setting it may well disable the second core, albeit in an ungraceful manner.

And as several other posters have backed up my statements you are the onle who is in error, but apparantly won't give in to reality.

Tell me, what exactly have they "backed up"? You continue to spread misinformation soley on the basis of you owning an X2 system even though there is blatant evidence to disprove you.

 

[Hacp]

Btw, do a search for the words

Dual Core Worth It

You'll find a BIG thread about it.

 

[harobikes333]

yes....... i was gonna mention it .... but I thought they might bite me.... lol

 

[Markbnj]

[If anything your CPU loadout is coming from offloading DirectX calls to the second CPU which has absolutely nothing to do with the game. Either that or from running background programs which again have absolutely nothing to do with the games themselves. ]

And on that note we can stop discussing this with you, because you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. But thanks for stopping by.

[Let's see a link to your tests. Honestly I don't know where you're getting that number, seems like you're just making it up. Everything I've heard/read/know says that games are not currently benefiting from multicore systems, period. Just because they have multiple threads does not mean they are taking advantage of multiple cores. ]

I actually don't go around making things up, just as I don't go around arguing with knowlegeable people on the basis of what I have "heard/read/know." You don't know very much, so I am guessing most of your argument is based on the "heard/read" component. Your technical positions are uninformed and pretty close to ignorant.

Here is a link to one thread:

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=28&threadid=1702435&enterthread=y

When you run similar tests and show little or no dual core utilization then you will have a point.

 

[Lawrence3G]

Yes Dual Core is worth it...it just removes the hassle of gaming while surfing the web...etc...My next upgrade for next year will be an Athlon dual core...

 

[natto fire]

Is extended memory worth it? I mean my comp is playing Kingdom of Kroz just fine with 640KB. Why should I buy extended memory if there aren't any games out to take advantage of it?

 

[drwngflies]

I guess everyone was so caught up in the argument, they failed to read certain parts (if they read any of) of the above links:

"Perimeter is a real-time strategy game being developed by the Russian studio KD Labs. RTS games are necessarily CPU-heavy. Perimeter implements constant terrain reforming as a gameplay element, and also incorporates highly detailed graphics for an RTS game. The dev team broke up the main loop into two threads, one for the user interface and graphics rendering, the other for logic and AI.

The net result was a substantial increase in performance. In a demo of the game with multithreading disabled, the game exhibited a frame rate hovering in the 12-18 fps range, while the multithreaded version ran at 22-30fps on debug code on a 3.2GHz Pentium 4. "

If Multi threading is enabled on a single CPU system there was an increase in fps, EXACTLY what GAMERS WANT.

If a Dual Core CPU was used, there could be even MORE threads seperated among the two cores, so even a high school student can see where this could go, as far as GAMERS could utilize a dual core CPU.

Your comment about "If anything your CPU loadout is coming from offloading DirectX calls to the second CPU which has absolutely nothing to do with the game." now seems flawed.

And this, from:
Tim Sweeney: "It's too early to talk numbers, but we certainly expect Unreal Engine 3 titles to see significant gains on multi-core platforms."
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2377&p=3

 

[Markbnj]

:thumbsup: for actual information, as opposed to inflamed opinions.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: drwngflies
"Part of that boost will come from the fact that Direct3D and OS overhead, which accounts for as much as 50% of CPU cycles at times, will be moved to its own CPU."
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050324-4733.html
ColinMcrae 4:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_zdext/is_200403/ai_ziff122662
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2377&p=3
http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/7837/Nake...Entertainment-Demonstrates-RoboHordes/
Along with the Unreal 3 Engine, this game also utilizes Multi-Core CPU's:
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/galacticcivilizations/index.html
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,793451,00.asp
And Perimeter:
http://www.codemasters.com/perimeter/about-game/
And from Intel:
"You can use its two complete execution cores to play a multi-threaded game while running anti-cheat software in the background, or host a multiplayer game while watching a DVD."
http://www.intel.com/personal/gaming/speed_need.htm
Seems even they knew a possible allocation of acore to an appl would be beneficial.
There might be a few more games using it now, but I'm tired on Googling.

This is exactly the post I was referring to when I got flamed. Maybe a repost of that post is worthy.

And no matter how you try to twist facts, you CAN'T disable one core. You can force a program to use one or the other, or try to force windows not to see it or utilize it, but you allways have two available cores.

 

[Megatomic]

Originally posted by: Hacp
Looks like price/performance isn't what people like MARK strive for.

Some people don't HAVE to build good price/performance systems.

 

[Skyhanger]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: harobikes333
hate to interupt this argument But does anyone have a suggestion on my reply

Originally posted by: harobikes333
I'm planning on getting a 3800 X2. Do you suggest the toledo core, or doesn't it matter?

Also, is the 3800 X2 a good CPU to put with a 7800GT???

Before it gets lost in all the pages...?

Yes should be fine.

You could also look at the new Dual Core 939 Opterons that just came out.
Sever class stability == Extreme OC goodness

 

[Phluxed]

Opreton 165 4tw.

 

[BFG10K]

And on that note we can stop discussing this with you, because you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

I don't think so.

Here is a link to one thread:

So, uh, where are the actual performance results? Those graphs show CPU utilization across two cores, which means what exactly? How does one translate raw performance from such graphs or even compare it to other systems?

I can make a program that pegs any number of processors at 100%. This would show what exactly?

Even the most basic graphs show single core head of dual core, regardless of what your CPU graphs show.

 

[Reapsy01]

Er that graph from Tom's must be wrong it shows a prescott beating FX57 in doom III

 

[Phluxed]

Seems to me games that are CPU heavy (UT2004) the dual core processors did well.

 

[BFG10K]

If a Dual Core CPU was used, there could be even MORE threads seperated among the two cores, so even a high school student can see where this could go, as far as GAMERS could utilize a dual core CPU.

Yes, you would have to be a high school student to make such claims. The claim "just spin more threads and you'll get automatic performance gains on SMP systems, it's so easy!" is quite a simpleton one.

Your comment about "If anything your CPU loadout is coming from offloading DirectX calls to the second CPU which has absolutely nothing to do with the game." now seems flawed.

Err, if you had bothered reading the whole thing instead of selectively quoting what pleases you then you'd see Sweeney himself mentions exactly what I said. Of course Vista will remove a lot of DirectX's inefficiencies and thus most gains from SMP would thusly be reduced or even negated in such a situation.

Not only that but Sweeney repeatedly states multithreading isn't trivial by any means and that spinning multiple threads (which any idiot can do) doesn't necessarily mean more performance.

 

[BFG10K]

Er that graph from Tom's must be wrong it shows a prescott beating FX57 in doom III

The Doom 3 benchmarks are GPU limited so any variation between the CPUs is just benchmarking noise.

 

[BFG10K]

And no matter how you try to twist facts, you CAN'T disable one core. You can force a program to use one or the other, or try to force windows not to see it or utilize it, but you allways have two available cores.

Well sure, short of snapping off the second core it'll always be physically present. But my goodness, your argument is beyond clutching at straws.

 

[sandorski]

Money no object, Dual Core 4800(or overclocked equivalent/higher) makes the most sense IMO. Certainly the 4000+/FX single core cpus are better/(just as good) in single app useage, but Dual Cores have the added benefit of offloading other tasks that Windows performs no matter what anyway. Not sure of the realworld benefit of this offloading, but it would certainly exist to some degree. Most of the Dual Core advantage is yet to come though.

Yes, many Games are Multi-Threaded, but as others have said that doesn't mean they use Multi-processor configurations. Unreal Engine runs 100s of threads during a game, a crazy mapper could make it run 1000s if he were to , but no matter how many threads Unreal Engine is managing it will still only use 1 Core/Processor. This is why Mark Rein is both excited, but uncommitted on benefits of Multi-Core processors. The availability of more than 1 core/processor opens a lot of possibilities for him.

 

[Maluno]

Did anyone notice what happened to the OP? Did he just get swept up in the torrent of insults and flames being viciously hurled back and forth? Or did he decide to call it a day, and buy a Dell?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Maluno
Did anyone notice what happened to the OP? Did he just get swept up in the torrent of insults and flames being viciously hurled back and forth? Or did he decide to call it a day, and buy a Dell?

Hehe, either response would be legitimate.

 

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: Lyfer
Opteron 165 FTW.