what's your overall impression of dual core?

[PKing1977]

You are correct. People on this forum tend to be the people in the know, and not the average computer user. However, I do not see the overhype you tend to believe is going on. First off, everytime a new tech comes along there are always people saying "average user dont need this... average user dont need that" Then all of a sudden everyone starts using that new technology because of the benifits that come along with it.

As far as SMP programs, there are not too many out right now, but the dual core processers offer an instant benifit with multitasking. I have said many times that an dual core chip is not needed if you already have a good system (unless you just want one). What I have said is, if you are building a new system now, the X2 is the way to go. We are also talking about people on this forum AKA not the average user. I am glad that you can do 120 fps compared to my 100.. I truely hope you can see the diffrence in hl2.. However, SMP enabled games will be out soon (FIRST ONE IN NOVEMBER).. Show me a game that your FX can run and my X2 cant run very well.. I dont have the money to buy a computer every year, the X2 chip is the most future proof.. period..

PKing

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Mickey21

I gave you a picture of me on a corporate website showing I won the competition and you doubt me having what I say? WTH do you need for proof? A stool sample too? Sheesh... You can go on all day with what you believe. The attitude lately I have been getting from Dual core enthusiasts seems to be extremely hostile. I ask what is up with that.

All of a sudden you know me? You dont know me. I host LAN parties for the last 6 years on my own dime in my own house welcoming people into my place to let them frag some other guy EVERY other month (Consistently 25-30 people - http://gaminglan.com/forum/index.php), come on down to Austin, TX and you can join on in the fun while browsing my supposed equipment. I have nothing to hide. I have been building computers for 20 years now. I am have been around enough to know what is marketing BS overhype and what is realistic. Some people are saying get my head out, but wake up. SMP is not new and though a very great benefit in SMP capable applications, there JUST ISNT THAT MANY OF THEM YET... You can go on about how you love to leave other applications running and how somehow that is beneficial, but tone down the marketing talk a little bit, in the end it isnt as different as you want to believe... Of course next I am going to get the standard, "Well, I like to eat Smacks while I browse the net, playing Half-life 2, encoding the latest DVD I am stealing, listening to Alanis in MP3, and Burning 4 DVD bootlegs of Star Wars at the same time. See how fast I can do that..." Big wow... You truely now how the biggest e-penis... I just dont see that in the AVERAGE person. Years of computer consulting, working in IT, working in computer retail, and just watching people use the computers has told me, "Hey, they dont use them for much other than checking emails, chatting, online banking, browsing the internet, and listening to music while they do..."

Sure there are a lot of gamers, and there are a lot of performance minded individuals like on this forum. But the fact remains that Joe Homebody with his daughter Judy Homebody, son Bobby Homebody and wife Ethel Homebody do not do these things regularly if at all. The fact also remains that in the retail market (where they are going to buy their computer) show me all the X2 based systems flying off the shelves. It isnt happening. Your lucky to find vendors selling AMD 64's much less their high priced counterparts... People LOVE cheap computers, end of story...

I know we are people in the know, but we arent average. Just dont act like finding dual cores is the holy grail to everything. I like performance processors but the average 3000+ rated processor is just fine for most. You can flame me all I want... Maybe your e-penis will swell some more...

Heh, you join the competition by Alienware for having the "FASTEST GAMING" system and you imply we don't know what is marketing BS and what is overhype? I mean come on, how much more marketing BS can it get to host a competition to convince people it's cool and necessary to have FX-57, SLI 7800GTX to run games.

Anyway, it's cool that you won the fastest gaming competition, and you host lan party and so on. Maybe what you said it true, like you said, I don't know you. If you read my post, all I am saying is your statement on X2 overclock is untrue based on my own experience, and if you state something that's not true, who knows if your other statements are true as well.

If you also read my post, you will see that both you and I agree that "average" user can run everything they need with an average CPU out there. What we don't agree on, is if a high end cpu or dual core can better benefit most people, like the OP asked. From my own experience, having owned both dual core/cpu as well as high end A64/P4 pc, it is more likely people will run into situation where they run one application, but at the same time, something else happen in the background that take away the cpu process and slow down the response on the application they currently run. The user doesn't have to run two application for that to happen. There are plenty of stuff running in the background in the modern OS or scheduled application like anti-virus, spyware...etc. It is more likely that situation happens now a day compare to a user needing a really high end single core CPU to run a perticular application, and that' how I reach my conclusion a dual core cpu will better benefit an average user and not a high clocked single core cpu. I don't based my conclusion on the assumption that some application can take advantage of dual processing, I know most application average people use today don't have that capability. But I know most OS today is sophisticate enough to take advantage of dual core when multiple process are running, and that happens alot even for an average user.

Finally, if you don't like to get flamed, don't start a flame war by boasting your PC acheived the highest score and that's the definition of the fastest PC. I build home PC's and I deal with Unix servers and software development at work in a Fortune 50 company. I deal with optimizing software performance, webserver performance, web page response time every day, and I know enough to say CPU power isn't the absolute measurement on how an application perform. It is how OS/hardware manage conflicts and handles mutliple requests that's happenning on the server/computer at any given time that determine if some application will give you a good response and satisfactory performance. With today's OS with multiple services, and applications like anti-virus/spyware and more and more of complicated web programs running in the background or running while you browse that you may not awere of, dual core will offer more and more performance advantage, even to an average user.

 

[Markfw]

rchiu: Well put. I also have 12 computers at home, mostly used for my sons lan parties, work for 25 years in IT, and currently work in a 120,000 employee company. But I don;t brag they are the fastest, and don't pretend that I KNOW what the average user really needs, but I do know that almost everyone can utilize the power it has, and most will notice a difference.

 

[imported_Kensai]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
rchiu: Well put. I also have 12 computers at home, mostly used for my sons lan parties, work for 25 years in IT, and currently work in a 120,000 employee company. But I don;t brag they are the fastest, and don't pretend that I KNOW what the average user really needs, but I do know that almost everyone can utilize the power it has, and most will notice a difference.

The average user will notice a difference in performance, but the question is.. Will they pay that much more for that difference?

 

[Markfw]

Thats up to them. I do agree with Mickey21 on that point, that people don;t like to spend a lot of money on a computer. Then again, every one I build a system for (over 100, but all friends, do it for free) I talk to about quality and performance, and let them decide. Most will go for the Antec PSU over the generic 300, and 512 meg over 256 meg, etc... Now $380 over $150 is another story, but they will get cheaper, and people will see the benefit, and in a couple of years, maybe even NEED it.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Mickey21

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: Mickey21

Originally posted by: Duvie
Now lets consider how you hit 3.3ghz...You apply that same type of cooling and ocing and you likely can get an X2 in the 2.7-2.8ghz range anyways..If you are running water then 2.8ghz is a real chance...more exotic and more can be attained..the more you attain the more the spread will lengthen the single core needs to beat it....2.7ghz X2 is going to need 4ghz to compete with it in most apps if they are multithreaded....You are comparing an OC'd single core to dual cores...Put that same effort forth on the dual core and in any multithreaded app the lead will be unsrumountable....IN the same old gaming single threaded apps the single core and faster cpu speed will trump...no doubt about it...It has one core, less heat and thus likely more headroom.

Just wanted to also add, that 2.7Ghz is really not realistic... Any X2 overclocker you talk to will basically get about 10-15% overclocks tops. More likely on average less than 10%. The dual cores just make it much harder to overclock...

BS...We have 4 guys in this forum alone I can think of over 2.7ghz...2.6ghz is pretty average for air cooling alone and mostly on 4400+...Gets your fact straight. You see one guy and you base all your opinions on that...

I can run 2.66ghz at 1.504-1.536v and that is over 15%...but just on air...

You need to pull the head out and go to sites like etreme and look at where the average ocer is running water and the norm is more like 2.7-2.8 like I stated...Vapo units I have seen a few X2's in the 3-3.2ghz range...

Heh, with a claim like "Any X2 overclocker you talk to will basically get about 10-15% overclocks tops", I wonder if we can believe anything he says at all, like having several dual system, having the fastest gaming computer....etc. My X2 3800+ is running at 2.5Ghz on air with 1.44volt right now prime stable, and if I want to push the voltage, I can get it to run 2.6Ghz at 1.55 volt. That's at least 25% OC. With the ease I have getting my x2 running at 2.4Ghz with default voltage and everything, I think 10-15% is not the top, but the very minimum any dual core can run at.

But anyway, there are people who live to see benchmarks, and those people are better off with a vapor chilled single core because one core will always be easier to overclock. But as any avid dual cpu/core system owners know, 99% of the applications out there can be handled easily by any average CPU, dual core/cpu or not. What dual core/cpu do is not making those applications run twice as fast, but making applications more responsive when other applications/services are taking up CPU power. There are not many benchmark that measures responsiveness, but any one who used a dual system experienced it first hand. And very few people go back to single core system after they've experienced the benefit, even when single core system may offer a little speed advantage.

There will always ppl who think good benchmark means faster computer. But there will be rest of us who actually experience both world and make informed decisions based on our experience. I've learned long ago not to bother educating those people who have their mind make up already. After all, it's their money and if they are happy seeing high benchmark and it they feel the benchmark means something to them, all the power to them.

I gave you a picture of me on a corporate website showing I won the competition and you doubt me having what I say? WTH do you need for proof? A stool sample too? Sheesh... You can go on all day with what you believe. The attitude lately I have been getting from Dual core enthusiasts seems to be extremely hostile. I ask what is up with that.

All of a sudden you know me? You dont know me. I host LAN parties for the last 6 years on my own dime in my own house welcoming people into my place to let them frag some other guy EVERY other month (Consistently 25-30 people - http://gaminglan.com/forum/index.php), come on down to Austin, TX and you can join on in the fun while browsing my supposed equipment. I have nothing to hide. I have been building computers for 20 years now. I am have been around enough to know what is marketing BS overhype and what is realistic. Some people are saying get my head out, but wake up. SMP is not new and though a very great benefit in SMP capable applications, there JUST ISNT THAT MANY OF THEM YET... You can go on about how you love to leave other applications running and how somehow that is beneficial, but tone down the marketing talk a little bit, in the end it isnt as different as you want to believe... Of course next I am going to get the standard, "Well, I like to eat Smacks while I browse the net, playing Half-life 2, encoding the latest DVD I am stealing, listening to Alanis in MP3, and Burning 4 DVD bootlegs of Star Wars at the same time. See how fast I can do that..." Big wow... You truely now how the biggest e-penis... I just dont see that in the AVERAGE person. Years of computer consulting, working in IT, working in computer retail, and just watching people use the computers has told me, "Hey, they dont use them for much other than checking emails, chatting, online banking, browsing the internet, and listening to music while they do..."

Sure there are a lot of gamers, and there are a lot of performance minded individuals like on this forum. But the fact remains that Joe Homebody with his daughter Judy Homebody, son Bobby Homebody and wife Ethel Homebody do not do these things regularly if at all. The fact also remains that in the retail market (where they are going to buy their computer) show me all the X2 based systems flying off the shelves. It isnt happening. Your lucky to find vendors selling AMD 64's much less their high priced counterparts... People LOVE cheap computers, end of story...

I know we are people in the know, but we arent average. Just dont act like finding dual cores is the holy grail to everything. I like performance processors but the average 3000+ rated processor is just fine for most. You can flame me all I want... Maybe your e-penis will swell some more...

dont redirect the issue...i said pull your head out cause you are given inaccurate information on the ability to currently oc X2's...get your facts straight there and then we can have a conversation. I dont care what you won as a gamer....you obviously dont know much about the state of AMD dual cores...

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: Mickey21

Originally posted by: Duvie
Now lets consider how you hit 3.3ghz...You apply that same type of cooling and ocing and you likely can get an X2 in the 2.7-2.8ghz range anyways..If you are running water then 2.8ghz is a real chance...more exotic and more can be attained..the more you attain the more the spread will lengthen the single core needs to beat it....2.7ghz X2 is going to need 4ghz to compete with it in most apps if they are multithreaded....You are comparing an OC'd single core to dual cores...Put that same effort forth on the dual core and in any multithreaded app the lead will be unsrumountable....IN the same old gaming single threaded apps the single core and faster cpu speed will trump...no doubt about it...It has one core, less heat and thus likely more headroom.

Just wanted to also add, that 2.7Ghz is really not realistic... Any X2 overclocker you talk to will basically get about 10-15% overclocks tops. More likely on average less than 10%. The dual cores just make it much harder to overclock...

I forgot to respond to this one. Mickey21, again, you are dead wrong. I have yet to see an OC on an X2 less than 2560 for a 4200 or 4400, which is 16.4% OC. And virtually every 3800+ I have seen is 2400 or better. Do you own an X2 ? Have you tried to OC it ? If not shut up !

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: Mickey21

Originally posted by: Duvie
Now lets consider how you hit 3.3ghz...You apply that same type of cooling and ocing and you likely can get an X2 in the 2.7-2.8ghz range anyways..If you are running water then 2.8ghz is a real chance...more exotic and more can be attained..the more you attain the more the spread will lengthen the single core needs to beat it....2.7ghz X2 is going to need 4ghz to compete with it in most apps if they are multithreaded....You are comparing an OC'd single core to dual cores...Put that same effort forth on the dual core and in any multithreaded app the lead will be unsrumountable....IN the same old gaming single threaded apps the single core and faster cpu speed will trump...no doubt about it...It has one core, less heat and thus likely more headroom.

Just wanted to also add, that 2.7Ghz is really not realistic... Any X2 overclocker you talk to will basically get about 10-15% overclocks tops. More likely on average less than 10%. The dual cores just make it much harder to overclock...

I forgot to respond to this one. Mickey21, again, you are dead wrong. I have yet to see an OC on an X2 less than 2560 for a 4200 or 4400, which is 16.4% OC. And virtually every 3800+ I have seen is 2400 or better. Do you own an X2 ? Have you tried to OC it ? If not shut up !

And that is air alone and a few of us who dont wnat to go over 1.5v....I can hit 2.66ghz with 1.52v (which I dont like cause the heat is mid 56c.....Ut for the mickey who math me mathematically challenged that is 21%....

 

[archcommus]

Originally posted by: archcommus
My question: we moved to dual core because multi-tasking has become more important and because we hit ceilings with CPU speeds. But we cannot increase the amount of cores forever, and as I've said, we've already hit ceilings in terms of a SINGLE CPU's speed. So where do we go from here?

^^ A question concerning my overall impression of dual core.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: archcommus

Originally posted by: archcommus
My question: we moved to dual core because multi-tasking has become more important and because we hit ceilings with CPU speeds. But we cannot increase the amount of cores forever, and as I've said, we've already hit ceilings in terms of a SINGLE CPU's speed. So where do we go from here?

^^ A question concerning my overall impression of dual core.

Good question....It is hard to tell since reports are the 65nm and 45nm processes have significantly reduced leakage which is what really brouht Intels speed war to a halt. It is conceivable that the 65nm parts may allow for 4ghz Intel parts and 3ghz AMD single core parts...that being said I think dual core can likely for AMD (not necessarily Intel until they revamp the whole smithfield idea) go to 3ghz and be something in the 6000+ X2 rating range....That will take us to about 2007 when quad cores are said to arrive...

Now if software does not make big strides in 2 years multicores above 2 is just going to be wasteful and we will be moving laterally...i think the software will however....

If you pressed me I would think quad cores will debut at about 25% below the top dual cores at the time so they may arrive at quad 2.4-2.6's if there was a 3.0ghz dual model...

All speculation and we have seen with INtel of the last year..sh^t happens and happens fast...

 

[archcommus]

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: archcommus

Originally posted by: archcommus
My question: we moved to dual core because multi-tasking has become more important and because we hit ceilings with CPU speeds. But we cannot increase the amount of cores forever, and as I've said, we've already hit ceilings in terms of a SINGLE CPU's speed. So where do we go from here?

^^ A question concerning my overall impression of dual core.

Good question....It is hard to tell since reports are the 65nm and 45nm processes have significantly reduced leakage which is what really brouht Intels speed war to a halt. It is conceivable that the 65nm parts may allow for 4ghz Intel parts and 3ghz AMD single core parts...that being said I think dual core can likely for AMD (not necessarily Intel until they revamp the whole smithfield idea) go to 3ghz and be something in the 6000+ X2 rating range....That will take us to about 2007 when quad cores are said to arrive...

Now if software does not make big strides in 2 years multicores above 2 is just going to be wasteful and we will be moving laterally...i think the software will however....

If you pressed me I would think quad cores will debut at about 25% below the top dual cores at the time so they may arrive at quad 2.4-2.6's if there was a 3.0ghz dual model...

All speculation and we have seen with INtel of the last year..sh^t happens and happens fast...

Makes sense, some marginal increases of core speeds with dual core, then quad core, and then some more marginal increases of core speeds again. But I can't picture anything beyond that. Anything more than 4 cores just seems like a waste.

 

[Markfw]

Anything more than 4 cores just seems like a waste.

When we get SMP software wide available, you can use almost an unlimited number of cores I believe.

 

[archcommus]

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Anything more than 4 cores just seems like a waste.

When we get SMP software wide available, you can use almost an unlimited number of cores I believe.

Explanation of SMP software?

 

[PKing1977]

software that uses more then one core.. for example, a new shooter game could put all of the AI code on one processer.. AI would improve substancally..

Pking

 

[stockriderman]

Originally posted by: fatty4ksu
Good performance

but..TONS OF BUGS!!

Unstable.

Agree. I am not sure if it's only cpu's fault,but it's not the best of stable pc's I've owned.

Damn fast though

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: stockriderman

Originally posted by: fatty4ksu
Good performance

but..TONS OF BUGS!!

Unstable.

Agree. I am not sure if it's only cpu's fault,but it's not the best of stable pc's I've owned.

Damn fast though

Do you have the amd X2 driver installed in OS???

Are you running 64bit widows???

As far as I have seen the cpu driver fixed some issue and not some others...the other issues were solved with the quick change of cpu affinity....

What other issues are you having...

By the way fatty4ku is a liar so I wouldn't agree with him....he is just trolling to piss ppl off...

 

[PKing1977]

looks like you are doing something wrong then..


PKing

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: stockriderman

Originally posted by: fatty4ksu
Good performance

but..TONS OF BUGS!!

Unstable.

Agree. I am not sure if it's only cpu's fault,but it's not the best of stable pc's I've owned.

Damn fast though

Power supply ????? Please list full specs, and problem symtoms.

 

[seanp789]

Ive got a 4400+


upgraded from a 3800+ effectively

My impression is this,... This chip was as easy to work with as AMD led many to believe, especially if you are an OC'er or a gamer or both.


After experimenting and lots of forum reading. I have learned to do everything I wanted to do with my dual core and I am very happy with the multitasking performance.

CPU temps are definitely higher with the X2s but not unmanagable.

 

[ElTorrente]

I'm using 1.475 volts to run at a nice 2.7ghz. It's prime95 stable on both cores, can play any game at full res, and can run a defrag in the background while I'm firing rockets in BF2 at 1920x1200.

Who knows how fast I could make this using water cooling and more volts, but I bet I could get another 200+mhz easily. I've booted and loaded windows fine at 2800, but prime95 failed and it went to 52C, so I turned it back down. With just a more powerful fan I could probably get stable at 2800, and with water probably get over 2900 without too much trouble. I wasn't even planning on overclocking, actually, but then I saw how easily I could run faster, so now I want to get water cooling and see what I can do.

There seems to be, also, a misconception that the single cores are faster than dual cores in games that aren't optimized for dual cores. What is that about? I've seen benchmarks showing the FX55 getting beat at high resolutions in certain games by the x2 4800 (which runs 200mhz slower btw). The FX55 beats it be just a few FPS in most games, but I am sure that comparing the same clock speed FX vs X2 - the X2 is gonna win.

And don't forget - there are lots of programs and utilities that we run in addition to any one game we are playing, especially online. Of course I mean anti virus, TS, game spy, all seeing eye, IM, etc etc etc..

 

[piddlefoot]

yep.....
my fx55 is not my main games pc anymore, my 4400+ is, backround tasks just kill the single cores online, on ya own in single player with all backround stuff off the fx55 is better, but online it just cant compete.....

 

[ofiraltarasy]

Im one year all of our computers will be much fast as more multi threaded applications will come out... and i just read that AMD and intel are coming out with new processors

 

[archcommus]

Originally posted by: ofiraltarasy
Im one year all of our computers will be much fast as more multi threaded applications will come out... and i just read that AMD and intel are coming out with new processors

Well...that's usually a given.

 

[dnavarro]

Well I would like to add (specifically to Mickey21) that my X2 3800 is at 3.1 Ghz on my Vapo LS@ 1.63V (SuperPi 32m/game stable). I previously had an Athlon FX55@ 3.15 and it scored only marginally better in 3dmark01. However in online games (WOW, EQ2, BF2) I am consistently getting higher FPS and generally a smoother experience. I would imagine his 3.3 Gig setup is not that much faster than my X2 setup as I have other friends with similarly clocked setups@subzero temps. Also, in any multithreaded app dual core whoops your FX. This will include the games coming much sooner than you think.....
read here: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=72772

Guess I'll be playing F.E.A.R. !

D

 

[keitaro]

More additions, since the thread got bumped. My X2 3800+ clocks in at 2.4GHz on air. And I'm not even a heavy overclocker too. Is it worth getting dual-core? I firmly believe so. Would it benefit me for what I do on the system? I personally believe so.