Reaction to the Intel Dual Core Article

[Wicked2010]

What does everyone think about the results posted by Anandtech regarding dual core?

Not sure if there are any huge benefits regarding the typical gamer PC.

I'll probably stay away from it for a couple of years until it may become viable.

 

[EndGame]

Dual core offferings from both AMD & Intel will be significantly slower in gaming than their single core brothers. Dual core will benefit multitasking and choice aps. until games are coded to take advantage of it better.

 

[Zucarita9000]

Dual core will be extremely usefull as more application become multi threaded. You can benefit from dual core systems right now if you use 3ds max, Photoshop, Autocad, etc. But if a gamer is all you are, then no it'll be some time before game developers start to multi-thread them.

Dual core is intended for multitasking, and you can see from the reviews that is excels at it.

A lot of people here will say that dual core is useless and not worth it, but that's because all they do with their computers is play games. I would definetely benefit from dual core, as I multitask like hell. However, I just bought a new system on december 2004, so I'll just wait till Pressler or the next generation comes out.

 

[bowserjs]

Like everyone said, right now for gamers they dont help out, but where i want them is for the multi tasking performance, i have always wanted a dual cpu setup, now i can get one with one chip, however i will be waiting for the AMD offering

 

[Blain]

Originally posted by: Wicked2010
What does everyone think about the results posted by Anandtech regarding dual core?

Not sure if there are any huge benefits regarding the typical gamer PC.

I'll probably stay away from it for a couple of years until it may become viable.

Give that man a gold star! :laugh:

 

[Wicked2010]

Yay a gold star for me!!

My first gold star.

Today must be my lucky day hahaha.

I have also read that having 2 CPU's can slow down some games... which I'm wondering about. I know it is possible in Windows to tell a program to "BIND" to one CPU only. This should get it back to the same speed it was before on a single core no?? So this way we could still enjoy the same performance on dual core and single core and also benefit from the extra multitasking benefits that we may use from time to time.

Any thoughts?

 

[Lonyo]

I hope Anand can get some other useful numbers up, like how hot these things get, and what sort of overclocking potential there may be.

If dual core Prescott is rediculously hot, it would almost never be worth it. But the cooler on the system looked fairly reasonable.
Overclocking would be nice too though, and maybe they could ask Intel if there are plans for a 1066MHz FSB dual core Proc. (Or when they plan to make them).

 

[airfoil]

Heat and power requirements aside, this is an interesting product. Aside from reading more from Anand, I can't wait to see how the AMD offering does.

 

[jbh129]

ANother winner from Intel

I wonder how they do it?

 

[SNM]

Originally posted by: Wicked2010
Yay a gold star for me!!

My first gold star.

Today must be my lucky day hahaha.

I have also read that having 2 CPU's can slow down some games... which I'm wondering about. I know it is possible in Windows to tell a program to "BIND" to one CPU only. This should get it back to the same speed it was before on a single core no?? So this way we could still enjoy the same performance on dual core and single core and also benefit from the extra multitasking benefits that we may use from time to time.

Any thoughts?

Gaming is slower on dual-core than single core because it only uses one core, not because of some problem with having two cores. This wouldn't be a problem, except that each core in a dual-core is slower.

 

[imported_X]

Actually, I appreciate Intel pushing the market toward dual core through pricing that is competitive with their single core counterparts. It's the old chicken and egg problem of not having multithreaded software because nobody has hardware that can utilize it. At least this way, people will be more willing to take the dual core plunge, which will drive the need for multithreaded applications (read: games) in the future.

Personally, I won't be going dual core for at least a year. But I'm glad the hardware side is willing to bite the bullet as a strategic move long term.

 

[MDE]

Am I the only one that noticed the ridiculously huge northbridge cooler on the motherboard in the review? I can't imagine what someone like Abit or DFI would use to "improve" on that.

 

[MrControversial]

When games take advantage of it, I'm on board, but I won't be an early adopter this time around. I want to wait around until the chips are mature and they can overclock better.

 

[stevty2889]

I'm just curious how a dual core setup would run 2 MMORPG's at once. Since I have dual monitors I do that sometimes, I would think dual core could help run them more smoothly, dedicating a core to each game. Dual core with an SLI setup could make that interesting..

 

[Pariah]

For people looking to upgrade older SMP setups, this is a golden solution. I've been reluctant to upgrade, since I'm not really struggling with what I have and since the price of a new Xeon/Opteron setup that would noticably improve performance costs a small fortune I'm not interested in spending on a home PC. A new dual core P4 3.2GHz CPU and board should be significantly cheaper than 2 3.2GHz Xeons with quality board. My desire to avoid any boards larger than standard ATX that fit in my case also makes this new dual core platform promising since most quality SMP boards now are something larger than standard ATX. Just have to wait for PCI-E storage adapters to become more prevelant and I'll finally have something appealing to upgrade to.

As with everything else, this isn't for everyone, though I believe dual core CPU's will be more useful to a much larger percentage of users than dual GPU's will be.

 

[mircea]

Originally posted by: X
Actually, I appreciate Intel pushing the market toward dual core through pricing that is competitive with their single core counterparts.
....................................................................
Personally, I won't be going dual core for at least a year. But I'm glad the hardware side is willing to bite the bullet as a strategic move long term.

Well I wonder how else would Intel make people bite the dual core.
If you have an AMD system on a 939 socket you can just put a dual core in, flash the BIOS and get working. If you have a 754 system than you have to put in the money for the new s939 mob.
If you go Intel and have a 9xx board you have to buy the mob and dual core chip no matter. Now if you don't have a 9xx board or switching from AMD you have to buy at least the new mob, proc and ram.
So Intel had no choice in releasing with a very competitive price, since people need the "saved" money for the new mob (and maybe ram).
It's a good thing though that they are pushing the market. This means that in 2 years multithreaded, 64bit software will be the norm.

 

[Adul]

Originally posted by: EndGame
Dual core offferings from both AMD & Intel will be significantly slower in gaming than their single core brothers. Dual core will benefit multitasking and choice aps. until games are coded to take advantage of it better.

At least on the AMD side of things the speeds shouldn't be to much different. Looks like AMD will at least have a 2.4 GHz offering. That said I know for myself which I tend to do way to much at the same time would bennifit even in game for me

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: Zucarita9000
Dual core will be extremely usefull as more application become multi threaded. You can benefit from dual core systems right now if you use 3ds max, Photoshop, Autocad, etc. But if a gamer is all you are, then no it'll be some time before game developers start to multi-thread them.

Dual core is intended for multitasking, and you can see from the reviews that is excels at it.

A lot of people here will say that dual core is useless and not worth it, but that's because all they do with their computers is play games. I would definetely benefit from dual core, as I multitask like hell. However, I just bought a new system on december 2004, so I'll just wait till Pressler or the next generation comes out.

Quake 3 suports SMP. I don't know how it really panned out, but while it was in devlopment a yeas or two ago John Carmack said the Doom 3 engine would be SMP capable. Does anyone know if this ended up as truth or not?

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: Pariah

As with everything else, this isn't for everyone, though I believe dual core CPU's will be more useful to a much larger percentage of users than dual GPU's will be.

I agree 111%

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: EndGame
Dual core offferings from both AMD & Intel will be significantly slower in gaming than their single core brothers. Dual core will benefit multitasking and choice aps. until games are coded to take advantage of it better.

*ahem* Explain to me how a single core machine running at 2GHz would be faster than a dual core machine running at 2Ghz (each core). That makes no fvcking sense...

Therefore I believe you are wrong.

 

[Brian23]

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: Pariah

As with everything else, this isn't for everyone, though I believe dual core CPU's will be more useful to a much larger percentage of users than dual GPU's will be.

I agree 111%

In soviet russia, 111% agrees you!

 

[Wicked2010]

Originally posted by: Excelsior
*ahem* Explain to me how a single core machine running at 2GHz would be faster than a dual core machine running at 2Ghz (each core). That makes no fvcking sense...

Therefore I believe you are wrong.

Agreed.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: EndGame
Dual core offferings from both AMD & Intel will be significantly slower in gaming than their single core brothers. Dual core will benefit multitasking and choice aps. until games are coded to take advantage of it better.

*ahem* Explain to me how a single core machine running at 2GHz would be faster than a dual core machine running at 2Ghz (each core). That makes no fvcking sense...

Therefore I believe you are wrong.

I think he was referring to the fact that dual core CPU's will lag single core CPU's in terms of clockspeed, so for any current gaming needs, single core CPU's will be faster for some time.

 

[aatf510]

Originally posted by: Sunner
I think he was referring to the fact that dual core CPU's will lag single core CPU's in terms of clockspeed, so for any current gaming needs, single core CPU's will be faster for some time.

Right, I simply can't play my games on a 3.2GHz P4 anymore.

 

[imported_Phil]

Originally posted by: toattett

Originally posted by: Sunner
I think he was referring to the fact that dual core CPU's will lag single core CPU's in terms of clockspeed, so for any current gaming needs, single core CPU's will be faster for some time.

Right, I simply can't play my games on a 3.2GHz P4 anymore.

Which is why you have an FX-55, surely.