I can vouch on the multithreaded nature of pinnacle studio 9....just running in single thread mode will see nice gains that likely no current single core could deliver even oc'd to the hilt...
I can vouch on the multithreaded nature of pinnacle studio 9....just running in single thread mode will see nice gains that likely no current single core could deliver even oc'd to the hilt...
Originally posted by: rise4310
Originally posted by: Griffinhart
I have friends that said the same thing about Broadband vs dial up. Not a single one of them would ever consider going back to dial up.
nominated for the worst analogy of the year
I second that...
And Duvie, I really see your point. Dont take me for the arrogant gamer. I have been around. It is just that if I truely wanted to encode something while I played a game, I would use my second rig, not my second core. I encode, I video edit, I do all those things, but I like to game as well, and for me dual cores wouldnt do it. I just think I am more the norm than the dual core type of person. I cant believe you honestly would think that the average homebody needs dual processors.
And well maybe your X2 might be alright in TMPGenc and ADT2004 as well, but you might want to take that up with my Dell Poweredge Quad Processor XEON 2.8Ghz 16GB RAM 4TB Ultra-320 RAID 5 Server. He might know how better to serve you...
mode101wpb
Senior member
- Aug 16, 2005
- 445
- 0
- 71
I'm going to go with the X2 when the prices drop in 6-8 months at that time software should catch up even more to where it can really shine. For now I just went with a 4000+ which dropped in price since being released last year.
I missed the part where you qualified your earlier advice by saying "By the way, you'll want an entire second computer to go along with your single core CPU." So you're completely fine with using two cores to multitask, you just object to them being in the same CPU, or even the same motherboard?
OP: If you have the money for it and really think you'll stick with the system for three years, I still say go X2. My bet is if you go 4000 (a great processor) you'll spend the latter two years wishing you had got the X2. You said you're going to be playing EQ2. If you're like a lot of MMO players, there's times you'll want to tab out and surf for various reasons. If doing this is as balky as it is on my A64 system, that's another plus for the X2. Ever thought of using Fraps or something like it to make in-game videos? Another plus. And just because you don't currently do a particular type of multitasking because of single core limitations doesn't mean you won't start doing it and appreciating that ability once you have a dual core system capable of giving you the option.
At any rate, they're both great. You can't go wrong between the two IMHO, just a matter of deciding what will best fit your wants and needs.
Originally posted by: Mickey21
And Duvie, I really see your point. Dont take me for the arrogant gamer. I have been around. It is just that if I truely wanted to encode something while I played a game, I would use my second rig, not my second core. I encode, I video edit, I do all those things, but I like to game as well, and for me dual cores wouldnt do it. I just think I am more the norm than the dual core type of person. I cant believe you honestly would think that the average homebody needs dual processors.
And well maybe your X2 might be alright in TMPGenc and ADT2004 as well, but you might want to take that up with my Dell Poweredge Quad Processor XEON 2.8Ghz 16GB RAM 4TB Ultra-320 RAID 5 Server. He might know how better to serve you...
I have no doubt that the quads could lay waste to me in the CAD apps...I have seen in some encoding apps where it is not addressing more then 2 threads so I could still give the xeons a possible beating there...2.8ghz xeons would be equivalent to my cores at around 2.2-2.3ghz...so at 2.66ghz I am a little better then 2-1/2 of your cores...if the app wont take advantage of the 4 cores then it wont be faster...Did you see how many apps the 4core of the XE had no gain over the P-D 840 and actually lost a few??? really your qud xeons (which I am droolingh over the CAD thought of it) would have 8 cores....This could all be moot if it was the HT that was the issue..You would have to run some test and let use now...
Something about the linear nature of the video encdoing that makes its use of more then 2 cores a btit iffy....
I also like the cost of 1 system...with 1 PSU (bigger though), 1 mobo, 1 case, 1 set of ram, less drives, etc....the second ciore is like having a second system without the cost of all the other components needed to run...
I would say that you vastly under estimate the average computer user. Yes, the person who uses there computer to check email and surf the net does not need a dual core processer. However, we are not talking about average users right now. Most people who get into computer games, I would argue, are more then average computer users. They tax there system in ways many people do not. Windows by its very nature is a multitasking enviroment. That is only one of the benifits that dual core chips offer. As for games, you are mistakenly giving the impression that X2 chips are much slower then single core chips.. This is not the case. I load up faster then just about everyone else when I play HL2 and that is while I have several programs running in the background.
Your trying to compare a MAJOR improvement to multitasking with a MAJOR improvement with multithreaded programs to a very minor drop in fps (that just happen to be above 100 anyway.....) It is just rediculous.
As for games, the first major game that is multi threaded comes out in November. An X2 will run any game that is out and will come out in the near future extremely well and be very competitive in times. By the time games will bog on an 3500 core (my X2 single core) vs a FX the games will be multi threaded and I will destroy a single core FX. If you have not noticed both Intel and AMD are pushing dual core solutions, and that is because thier cpus are maxing out on increased mhz... Like I said earlier, anyone buying a new computer or upgrading a processer now should get an X2 if the buget fits. They are about the same price as higher end single core chips.
PKing
good points....
This is nothing new to me...i was bashed and discounted for a year or so wiuth Ht and everybody telling me no one needed it, blah blah blah...Now ask Intel users how much they love HT....It is the only thing that kept them competitive in the last 2 years plus...
Originally posted by: rise4310
Originally posted by: Griffinhart
I have friends that said the same thing about Broadband vs dial up. Not a single one of them would ever consider going back to dial up.
nominated for the worst analogy of the year
Ok, it's not the "best" analogy, but it's certainly not the worse. The "average" internet user just uses IM, IRC, Mail and Web surfing, even MMORPG's play very well on dial up. All of these can be done extremely well on dial up. As a result, my friends that had dial up always looked at the cost of Broadband, compared it to their current needs and thought it wasnt worth it. It was only when they actually experienced Broadband that things changed. The way they used the internet changed, they adapted and grew to use the bandwidth they had but never thought they would need. Now they would never go back.
same exact thing with DC. The same average computer user doesn't need dual core, but once you experience it and start utilizing it, you will never want to go back. So the analogy is actually very accurate.
You don't NEED to download large files, but it sure makes life easier. You don't NEED DC, but not having to walk away from the PC for hours when running a heavy task or completing Video jobs much quicker sure makes life easier.
The fact is:
No matter what X2 someone buys today, they would still have purchased a computer that plays all current games as fast or faster than the average computer sold today. On top of that they would get all the benefits of dual core, including multitasking and running multi-threaded apps like pinnacle much quicker. All well worth the $200 to $300 more than the competing single core IMHO.
Well given that the OP uses Photoshop, Pinnacle Studio 9, as well as plays games his needs are much greater than the "average homebody" that only surfs and plays the occasional game.
Btw, Tang. I play BF2 as well. I have the 4400+ X2, 2GB of RAM, SB Audigy 2, and GF6800GT. I play BF2 at 1600x1200 w/ 4x AA, and all settings on Max with no problems.
Dont forget the X2's are based on the newer venice/san diego cores so they all have SSE3 as well...another item that may show more benefits down the line...seemed to have helped the prescott nicely in certain encoding apps as well...helped alleviate the penalty of iNtel lengthening the pipeline....
Thanks again all;
Griffinhart
It sounds like we use the computer for similar things. Im encouraged by your favourable results with both EQ2 and BF2, as well as all the other apps.
I'm going to the computer store today and will price out the dual cores and see what the results are.
Griffinhart
It sounds like we use the computer for similar things. Im encouraged by your favourable results with both EQ2 and BF2, as well as all the other apps.
I'm going to the computer store today and will price out the dual cores and see what the results are.
Tango...buying frommonarch bundled with mobo and hsf seems to be some of the best deals I have seen....most brick and mortart retail stores cant compete....plus I haven't seen too many prebuilt X2 dual cores if that is what you are looking for ....
mode101wpb
Senior member
- Aug 16, 2005
- 445
- 0
- 71
Yep I believe that one has been done for awhile...Unfortunately they like to run cas2.5 at 400ddr and lots of their benchmarks dont agree with other sites (like AT, tech Report, etc.)...Their 3dsmax7 score is off compared to other sites, Their Lame mp3 is off...That is just to name a few....
Overall it gets the point across...they just seemsed to have watered down score....I lioke to look at all of them and see the average and they were on the low end for all the sites....
I have to say the gaming benchmarks on the higher end single core processors are very impressive. It is these benchmarks that cause me to pause before jumping into a dual core.
Anyone care to comment on the consequences of having a single core with dual core applications/games?
Of note AO3 will use dual cores. What will happen to the performance on a single core computer? Will it run at all?
One person at the computer store suggested that software developers might make dual and single core versions during the transition.
Anyone have some insight into this before I make my big decision. (This afternoon sometime).
Griffinhart
With EQ2, what did you run with before your dual core?
Have you seen EQ2 on a higher end single core? what are the differences between it and yours?
The best I can do money wise is an x2 4200. How will this run EQ2 compared to my current P4 2.8?
Anyone care to comment on the consequences of having a single core with dual core applications/games?
Of note AO3 will use dual cores. What will happen to the performance on a single core computer? Will it run at all?
One person at the computer store suggested that software developers might make dual and single core versions during the transition.
Anyone have some insight into this before I make my big decision. (This afternoon sometime).
Griffinhart
With EQ2, what did you run with before your dual core?
Have you seen EQ2 on a higher end single core? what are the differences between it and yours?
The best I can do money wise is an x2 4200. How will this run EQ2 compared to my current P4 2.8?
I don't know of any software that requires dual or single core. AO3 will most certainly run well on single core CPU's but, I expect it will run better on Dual core.
I doubt you'll see different versions since there is no need. If a multi core game sees only one processor it will just let the windows scheduler handle it.
My 4400+ X2 (2.2ghz w/ 1mb cache) replaced a 3500+(2.2ghz w/512mb cache). I see modestly better framerates with the X2 than I did with the 3500+. Overall, without a doubt, it's been a better experience when you take into account my other apps. Pinnacle and Photoshop saw significant improvement. I was a bit squeamish about dropping $600 for a processor when I already had a 3500+, but in retrospect now, I'd do it again in a heartbeat.
Since you are getting a new Videoboard, it will likely be night and day. The videoboard will make a larger difference than the CPU in most games, but, if you have a processor running less than 3ghz or it's equiv then the video card is actually waiting for the processor to catch up a lot.
Btw, the X2 4200+ will be faster at games than my 3500+ was.
With the 3500+ and a 6800GT I was able to play EQ2 at 1600x1200 with effects turned to maximum in Antonica and Thundering Steppes, though, I had to turn down quality to "high" when in places like blackborrow. Given your 7800 choice, you should do a bit better.
In EQ1, I run 1600x1200 with everyting set to max. No problems even in new zones at a 72 person raid.
And as I mentioned earlier, in BF2, I have everything on max at 1600x1200.
with an X2 you won't be unhappy with gaming performance at all. What little performance you lose in games (vs single core) you will more than make up for in the other abilities of the dual core.
Gamingphreek
Lifer
- Mar 31, 2003
- 11,679
- 0
- 81
Well, being the owner of an FX 55 (which I was not impressed with) and now the owner of an X2 4400+. I can say that I can see better performance out of my X2 than my FX 55. I don't overclock...so my FX 55 was running at stock speed. 4400+ running at 2.2 ghz and the FX running at 2.6 ghz...when comparing them as single cores you're not going to really tell any difference with just 400 mhz. But then you include that you are running 2 (two) 2.2 ghz cores so that gives you twice as much power...maybe not all that power is being used right now by all apps...but at least it is there to be used when it can be. You can now play your games and encode video at the same time. Something that would grind even my FX to a slow pace.
I would say go with an X2...you will not regret it. Unless you are one of these bleeding overclockers...then get an unlocked FX and blast it out to the max.
I would say go with an X2...you will not regret it. Unless you are one of these bleeding overclockers...then get an unlocked FX and blast it out to the max.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter