what's your overall impression of dual core?

[Griffinhart]

Originally posted by: ncasebee
Both Gabe Carmack and John Carmack(Mr. ID) aren't particularly hot about dual core. If the developers aren't hot about it, then don't expect games to use it for quite awhile. When games start seeing a large increase in performance with dual core, I'll hop on and buy one. I find though that this whole Dual Core thing might not really start being integrated for quite awhile. Look at the hype that was 64 bit games. Where are the 64 bit games I ask? How old are the 64 bit Amds now? I have no interest in multitasking, like some people do. I'm gonna stay with a very fast single core for now. Now, when the developers start really multithreading, I'll get on, if it's worth it. Currently though, for gaming, I see no reason for dual cores.

If your only use for a computer is video games and surfing the web, then a single core is fine for now, but, Dual cores bring much more than just multitasking. Which is the whole point. Dual Cores simply own single cores when dealing with any media content creation/editing. Music, Video, Photos: If you do any amount of work with any of them Dual Cores are the way to go even without multi-tasking.

Games seem to be about the only CPU intensive programs not taking advantage of multi processors. But, it doesn't matter what Carmack thinks about them. Games with DC support are coming and ID will have to follow suit or be behind the curve. Even if a game only partially uses the second core, it would result in significant performance increases over single core.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: PKing1977

Originally posted by: fatty4ksu
Good performance

but..TONS OF BUGS!!

Unstable.

notice how someone who does not even claim to own the chip is expressing his opinion on the stability of the X2. At the same time, everyone who accually owns the chip loves it and has nothing but good things to say about it.

I really do not know how he can even justify saying the processer is unstable. I have loaded up XP pro, XP 64x and a couple of distros of Linux on my X2. The processer is solid. To claim otherwise just shows ignorance.

PKing

NO he claims he owns it and I believe he even showed pics of it back a few weeks....I just think he bit his tongue and bought the X2 the whole time hating it cause it wasn't his beloved intel chips...

 

[Mickey21]

From the perspective of an AMD FX-57 owner (2 now actually), I can tell you that single core systems are fast, contrary to what some dual core owners might want to believe. At 3.3Ghz, my FX-57 will smoke 99% of any gaming computers on the planet. I saw a bunch of dual core systems at Quakecon and not one of them could get great results in the Performance Challenge contest. The highest I witnessed was a Dual core 4400 running at 2.6Ghz. Even with Dual SLI 7800GTX's the scores resulted were 17000ish points. An FX-55 clocked to 2.9Ghz and Dual BFG 7800GTX's with dual 74GB raptors got 25,800ish. (score based on Doom3 timedemo average FPS(*100) added to 3DMark 2005 score). The FX-55 even got over 11,000 just in 3DMark 2005. I am not saying that those tests mean everything, but come on, that is f'en fast...

Dual cores are nice, but they arent really needed at this time. It's like buying AMD64's one year ago. Sure it is good technology, but it takes time for software to catch up and dual cores wont be the best thing around for at least anouther year or so. I would get a faster single core over a dual core anyday. Of course, I know if you are using SMP aware software and games, by all means weigh that choice, but for the average user, single core is still the best choice for now. If you dont plan on upgrading in the next year and a half to two years, then maybe you might want to consider it, but predicting the future is no science...

 

[wsbsteven]

Originally posted by: Griffinhart
The only "instability" I see with my X2 is in EverQuest. And it's not the processor. It's the game itself. The same problem happens on Intel Dual core and any multi-processor system. The solution is to just tell the game to use a single core. That's not really instability though. That's just a game what doesn't know what to do with more than one processor.

Other than that, I have seen no instability at all. I have no wierd crashes, hangs, glitches or gremlins. It's every bit as stable as the single core processor it relplaced.

I use a Pentium D 820 and I don't have the instability problems with Everquest you mentioned.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Mickey21
From the perspective of an AMD FX-57 owner (2 now actually), I can tell you that single core systems are fast, contrary to what some dual core owners might want to believe. At 3.3Ghz, my FX-57 will smoke 99% of any gaming computers on the planet. I saw a bunch of dual core systems at Quakecon and not one of them could get great results in the Performance Challenge contest. The highest I witnessed was a Dual core 4400 running at 2.6Ghz. Even with Dual SLI 7800GTX's the scores resulted were 17000ish points. An FX-55 clocked to 2.9Ghz and Dual BFG 7800GTX's with dual 74GB raptors got 25,800ish. (score based on Doom3 timedemo average FPS(*100) added to 3DMark 2005 score). The FX-55 even got over 11,000 just in 3DMark 2005. I am not saying that those tests mean everything, but come on, that is f'en fast...

Dual cores are nice, but they arent really needed at this time. It's like buying AMD64's one year ago. Sure it is good technology, but it takes time for software to catch up and dual cores wont be the best thing around for at least anouther year or so. I would get a faster single core over a dual core anyday. Of course, I know if you are using SMP aware software and games, by all means weigh that choice, but for the average user, single core is still the best choice for now. If you dont plan on upgrading in the next year and a half to two years, then maybe you might want to consider it, but predicting the future is no science...

Sp[oken like someone who isn't comparing apples and apples....Like I said in other thread if it could achive same speed and have ram speed and timings be equal it would be as fast as a 90nm FX57 chip.....Now to get 3.3ghz on an X2 would be a tougher challenge as you have 2 cores and the you basically have to have 2 champs in there to pull it off....plus you have a higher thrermal output with the X2 at those speeds....


Now for your last statement...that is spoken from an arrogant gamer who doesn't realise other ppl in the REAL WORLD actually use their cpus for something productive..perhaps work...perhaps encoding and CAD rendering which my system at 2.6ghz would destroy yours at 3.3ghz?? how do I know cause in my TMPGenc and my ADT2004 I see perfect 100% increase from using 1 core to using 2 cores at same speed. Therefore it would take you running at 5ghz range to compete with me..make you feel good?? How long would I have had to wait to see those speeds realised in single cores??? probably 2 years if single cores could have kept ramping up...

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: wsbsteven

Originally posted by: Griffinhart
The only "instability" I see with my X2 is in EverQuest. And it's not the processor. It's the game itself. The same problem happens on Intel Dual core and any multi-processor system. The solution is to just tell the game to use a single core. That's not really instability though. That's just a game what doesn't know what to do with more than one processor.

Other than that, I have seen no instability at all. I have no wierd crashes, hangs, glitches or gremlins. It's every bit as stable as the single core processor it relplaced.

I use a Pentium D 820 and I don't have the instability problems with Everquest you mentioned.

Well some ppl have played the same games and some would have it and others would not....There must be some other variables...amd X2 drivers, perhaps?... windows platform being used?....This is a problem with the MS thread scheduler, and the games themselves IMO.


It took me like 3 seconds to fix the issue I was having in a demo game called Flatout. i have tested 4 games now and only one had to have the affinity changed in the task manager for its process...I loaded the X2 drivers but haven't rebooted to see if it helps...I have things going right now....

 

[Mickey21]

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: Mickey21
From the perspective of an AMD FX-57 owner (2 now actually), I can tell you that single core systems are fast, contrary to what some dual core owners might want to believe. At 3.3Ghz, my FX-57 will smoke 99% of any gaming computers on the planet. I saw a bunch of dual core systems at Quakecon and not one of them could get great results in the Performance Challenge contest. The highest I witnessed was a Dual core 4400 running at 2.6Ghz. Even with Dual SLI 7800GTX's the scores resulted were 17000ish points. An FX-55 clocked to 2.9Ghz and Dual BFG 7800GTX's with dual 74GB raptors got 25,800ish. (score based on Doom3 timedemo average FPS(*100) added to 3DMark 2005 score). The FX-55 even got over 11,000 just in 3DMark 2005. I am not saying that those tests mean everything, but come on, that is f'en fast...

Dual cores are nice, but they arent really needed at this time. It's like buying AMD64's one year ago. Sure it is good technology, but it takes time for software to catch up and dual cores wont be the best thing around for at least anouther year or so. I would get a faster single core over a dual core anyday. Of course, I know if you are using SMP aware software and games, by all means weigh that choice, but for the average user, single core is still the best choice for now. If you dont plan on upgrading in the next year and a half to two years, then maybe you might want to consider it, but predicting the future is no science...

Sp[oken like someone who isn't comparing apples and apples....Like I said in other thread if it could achive same speed and have ram speed and timings be equal it would be as fast as a 90nm FX57 chip.....Now to get 3.3ghz on an X2 would be a tougher challenge as you have 2 cores and the you basically have to have 2 champs in there to pull it off....plus you have a higher thrermal output with the X2 at those speeds....


Now for your last statement...that is spoken from an arrogant gamer who doesn't realise other ppl in the REAL WORLD actually use their cpus for something productive..perhaps work...perhaps encoding and CAD rendering which my system at 2.6ghz would destroy yours at 3.3ghz?? how do I know cause in my TMPGenc and my ADT2004 I see perfect 100% increase from using 1 core to using 2 cores at same speed. Therefore it would take you running at 5ghz range to compete with me..make you feel good?? How long would I have had to wait to see those speeds realised in single cores??? probably 2 years if single cores could have kept ramping up...

I know I am not comparing apples to apples, that is my point. They are different. From my perspective, as asked by the op, can I tell a difference? Yes, in gaming and like natured applications, the X2 is not as fast. Obviously if your dual chip could hit 3.3Ghz, there wouldnt be an issue. DUH, this is what makes the single core a much better alternative to dual cores. There faster clock rates can make up their disadvantage in most areas. Especially considering the lack of the multitude of common SMP capable software. You think in encoding without a dual core capable system you would destroy my system? Not going to happen. Sure use a dual core with SMP capable and of course you'll go faster. This is nothing new, and of course I know this. My point is that in general the average user (which is really neither of us) doesnt justify the benefit of dual cores right now. You can keep thinking they do, but that just isnt right. You think I give a care that your TMPGenc and ADT2004 scores would be higher.... That literally is laughable. 98% of random people asked also would not care. And if you think people dont get 5Ghz on single cores, well keep looking around. In any case, my point is that dual cores are particular for a certain group of people (more specific than single cores). And on average, the average person would truely not tell the difference. Of course your probably of the opinion that 99% of the people out there run TMPGenc and ADT2004 all day much less any SMP capable software... Please, give me a break... Oh well...

 

[Duvie]

<<There faster clock rates can make up their disadvantage in most areas.>>

pretty much only in single threaded apps or extremely poor multithreaded apps...Mopst of the apps I see if they are multithread seem to give 40-50% gains and 40-50% gains from a stock 2.2ghz would make a 3.3ghz just equal to it....

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.

Remember this...Even minor multitasking while gamig and going to steal cpu cycle sand quickly makes that single core loose it mhz effectiveness...



<<You think in encoding without a dual core capable system you would destroy my system? Not going to happen>

how are you going to pull this one out of your arse??? In TMPGenc my testing on my 3000+ showed the app scaled pretty linear...meaning you\r 3.3ghz would have only been 24% ahead of me in speed as a single core cpu....throw in maybe 3-5% for higher bandwidth though I was running some high ddr speeds....NOw I am 100% faster then that same cpu now...So where are you going to make up the other 70%!!!!!!!

Quit talking sh^t!! You cant beat plain factual numbers.....I will send you the test file, you can download the 2.52 trial, give you the settings to set, and then you can run it and we will see once and for all.....


<You think I give a care that your TMPGenc and ADT2004 scores would be higher.... That literally is laughable. 98% of random people asked also would not care.>

Just making my point...Theonly thing laughable is how much you take offense to the fact that something is faster then your 3.3ghz machine...Actually a lot of ppl outside of this predominantly gaming forum do....

<And if you think people dont get 5Ghz on single cores, well keep looking around>

Not with A64's they dont...I have seen some in the P4s but beyond the suicide shots and stable enough to run superpi 1mb not too many do too much with them at 5ghz..With an INtel machine it will need slightly more anyways since they run higher mhz anyways...My 2.66ghz ran equal with my P4 at 3.2ghz w/ HT...so it could take closer to 6ghz with a P4...find some of those for me....


<Please, give me a break>

I just exposed your thread is being pretty much opinion and loosely based on reality for many users...Not all ppl are gamers...there are whole web forums that just CAD and just encode and video edit....

I run DC clients as well and I have doubled my work load cause I can run 2 instances...It has many applications, you just need to look outside of the gaming box....

 

[blckgrffn]

Jeesh! What the hell is the issue here? A guy points out a dual core is A)faster at gaming and B)all the average Joe needs at this point and you flame the hell out of him? Better gaming performance is a fact, not an opinion. And for those of you out there that leave IE and Outlook and Kazaa open, well, you should be fine as long as you have enough ram with a single core. For those people who use there computer as a workstation and not so much primarily as a word processing/internet/gaming box, dual core makes a hell of a lot of sense and is the obvious no brainer at this point.

To the OP, I don't own one, but if you aren't looking to heavily multitask, the X2 right now probably aren't the best option. Hit up a $120 3000+, squeeze some performance out of it, and wait for the X2's to drop in price. Yep, it might be a while, but why pay such a premium for them right now when they will become very mainstream in not-so-distant future?

Now, if your budget already allows ~$350 for a CPU, by all means get an X2. The other options aren't that much faster (3700+, 3800+, and 4000+) and if you OC even a modest amount you will have similar single thread performance along with the very nice dual processor computing experience (I have owned/used a dual Xeon rig, and I can attest to that).

I just don't see why everyone has to get so excited around here!

 

[Markfw]

If all you do is game, or are very poor, then a single core Venice right now is the way to go, otherwise, there are SO many advantages of Dual-core that it is the recommended way to go. THAT IS THE POINT DUVIE IS TRYING TO MAKE, AND I AGREE, AND HE GOT FLAMED FOR SAYING IT, SO HE DEFENDED HIMSELF.

Mickey21 is just not listening. BTW out of my 12 boxes, the fastest core speed of any IS my X2. My winchester's(2) both couldn't get above 2.2, and my socket 754's (4) the best is 2.3, but My X2 easily hit 2.563 ALL ON AIR, and I am a gamer, so it IS important to me. But while they are not being used for LAN parties for my son, they are running F@H, and I can get 2X points with the same number of boxes once I replace them all.

 

[ohwell78]

Been reading that with break throughs in nano tubes and photonics we can see single core processors 100 times smaller ciruitry. So the thermal cap of single cores might be alleviated.

This could mean 10 ghz processors within a few years. I dont know if using the same old technology and just adding new cores is as good as using new technology on single cores.

Nano tubes use Carbon instead of silicon and work as natural circuits at much smaller and much cooler rates. They are already being mass produced.

Eventually though Photonics instead of electronics will be the way to go. As fibre cables shrink and become costs effective data will be transmitted on light inside the processor.

 

[blckgrffn]

The way I read it, Mickey simply stated his opinion and got flamed for it, so flamed back... eh, doesn't really matter, hope the OP is able to get something out of this

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: blckgrffn
Jeesh! What the hell is the issue here? A guy points out a dual core is A)faster at gaming and B)all the average Joe needs at this point and you flame the hell out of him? Better gaming performance is a fact, not an opinion. And for those of you out there that leave IE and Outlook and Kazaa open, well, you should be fine as long as you have enough ram with a single core. For those people who use there computer as a workstation and not so much primarily as a word processing/internet/gaming box, dual core makes a hell of a lot of sense and is the obvious no brainer at this point.

To the OP, I don't own one, but if you aren't looking to heavily multitask, the X2 right now probably aren't the best option. Hit up a $120 3000+, squeeze some performance out of it, and wait for the X2's to drop in price. Yep, it might be a while, but why pay such a premium for them right now when they will become very mainstream in not-so-distant future?

Now, if your budget already allows ~$350 for a CPU, by all means get an X2. The other options aren't that much faster (3700+, 3800+, and 4000+) and if you OC even a modest amount you will have similar single thread performance along with the very nice dual processor computing experience (I have owned/used a dual Xeon rig, and I can attest to that).

I just don't see why everyone has to get so excited around here!

Who says I flamed him?? the fact is ppl in here (usually gamers) make statements like that all the time... " I dont think dual cores are needed yet"...Blanket statement that discounts the needs by more ppl then you think...

The other point is ppl just think it is for multitasking..It isn't ...there are apps (plenty of them again outside of gaming< I even belive excel is multithreaded) that take advantage of it now in a single application mode...

I dont disagree that most average users dont need it yet, and most gamers dont need it yet....BUt that is not what he said, and after more reposnses form OP it appears he may fall under same categroy as me....you know the minority user here, the one running TMPGenc and CASD apps that no one cares about....

 

[blckgrffn]

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: blckgrffn
Jeesh! What the hell is the issue here? A guy points out a dual core is A)faster at gaming and B)all the average Joe needs at this point and you flame the hell out of him? Better gaming performance is a fact, not an opinion. And for those of you out there that leave IE and Outlook and Kazaa open, well, you should be fine as long as you have enough ram with a single core. For those people who use there computer as a workstation and not so much primarily as a word processing/internet/gaming box, dual core makes a hell of a lot of sense and is the obvious no brainer at this point.

To the OP, I don't own one, but if you aren't looking to heavily multitask, the X2 right now probably aren't the best option. Hit up a $120 3000+, squeeze some performance out of it, and wait for the X2's to drop in price. Yep, it might be a while, but why pay such a premium for them right now when they will become very mainstream in not-so-distant future?

Now, if your budget already allows ~$350 for a CPU, by all means get an X2. The other options aren't that much faster (3700+, 3800+, and 4000+) and if you OC even a modest amount you will have similar single thread performance along with the very nice dual processor computing experience (I have owned/used a dual Xeon rig, and I can attest to that).

I just don't see why everyone has to get so excited around here!

Who says I flamed him?? the fact is ppl in here (usually gamers) make statements like that all the time... " I dont think dual cores are needed yet"...Blanket statement that discounts the needs by more ppl then you think...

The other point is ppl just think it is for multitasking..It isn't ...there are apps (plenty of them again outside of gaming< I even belive excel is multithreaded) that take advantage of it now in a single application mode...

I dont disagree that most average users dont need it yet, and most gamers dont need it yet....BUt that is not what he said, and after more reposnses form OP it appears he may fall under same categroy as me....you know the minority user here, the one running TMPGenc and CASD apps that no one cares about....

lol, yes, I suppose this is true Not trying to ruffle any feathers here, I'll try to stick more to just posting info in the future and not my opinions on other people posts

It's pretty funny how so many of us here could be in the "minority" of computer users... Do you own more than one computer? Check! Do you have a video card or processor that came out in the last six months? Check! Do you spend way to much time on technical forums? Check!

 

[AkumaX]

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: SonicIce
are there any single applications or that benefit from DC cpu's? i know photoshop works alot faster on them. what are some situations where dual core would really come in handy?

MOst encoding apps and video renderers....

http://home.comcast.net/~duvie23/x2-2662-11242-tmpgenccpu1.JPG
http://home.comcast.net/~duvie23/x2-2662-11242-tmpgenccpu2.JPG

so with Dual Core, does TMPGEnc Plus automatically work with both cores (multi-threaded), or do you have to set affinity? what about TMPGEnc Express or DVD Author?

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: AkumaX

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: SonicIce
are there any single applications or that benefit from DC cpu's? i know photoshop works alot faster on them. what are some situations where dual core would really come in handy?

MOst encoding apps and video renderers....

http://home.comcast.net/~duvie23/x2-2662-11242-tmpgenccpu1.JPG
http://home.comcast.net/~duvie23/x2-2662-11242-tmpgenccpu2.JPG

so with Dual Core, does TMPGEnc Plus automatically work with both cores (multi-threaded), or do you have to set affinity? what about TMPGEnc Express or DVD Author?

YHM...

 

[Velk]

Originally posted by: Mickey21
From the perspective of an AMD FX-57 owner (2 now actually), I can tell you that single core systems are fast, contrary to what some dual core owners might want to believe. At 3.3Ghz, my FX-57 will smoke 99% of any gaming computers on the planet.
<SNIP>
Dual cores are nice, but they arent really needed at this time.
<SNIP>
but for the average user, single core is still the best choice for now.

While you make some good points, trying to use 'need' and 'best choice' and 'average user' in the context of a massively overclocked FX-57 simply does not work and makes you look kind of silly.

 

[ElTorrente]

I'm a big time gamer - and I chose the X2 4800 over the FX57.

To me, it wasn't much of a decision to make.

First of all, I play games online, and as such- I run programs in the background like firewall, anti-virus, anti-spam, IM, TeamSpeak, Progs for my hotas, various little utilities, etc.. and I don't ever have to worry about those things slowing me down. Heck, I don't care if my normally scheduled things like virus scans, spyware scans, and perfect disk defragging occur while I'm playing BF2 at 1920x1200.. it just doesn't matter much at all.

Second of all, It does EVERYTHING else better than the FX57.

Third- two cores are better than one. More and more apps and games are going to take advantage of dual cores for the simple fact that they are becoming more and more common.

I read some comment above that because Carmack isn't big on it, we can forget about seeing dual core being taken advantage of much in the gaming industry anytime soon. That's a load of crap.. I work in the gaming industry myself and I can tell you this is BS to assume that Carmack and his minions dictate the terms because their engines are so widely used. Guess what, there's lots of engines and they have to compete just like everyone else. With dual cores, they can have more intelligent AI, more features, etc..

 

[Griffinhart]

Yep, Sure the 4800+ X2 may be a few FPS (litterally only a few on some games) slower than the FX-57, but as you say, it does everything else faster. Well worth the tradeoff in my opinion.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: fatty4ksu
Good performance

but..TONS OF BUGS!!

Unstable.

Not for me ...

 

[Jeff7181]

To the dual core owners, if you own an nVidia video card have you tried their multi-threaded drivers?

 

[ElTorrente]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
To the dual core owners, if you own an nVidia video card have you tried their multi-threaded drivers?

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: ElTorrente

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
To the dual core owners, if you own an nVidia video card have you tried their multi-threaded drivers?

What's the problem?

 

[mdubrow]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: ElTorrente

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
To the dual core owners, if you own an nVidia video card have you tried their multi-threaded drivers?

What's the problem?

I didn't think the multithreaded drivers existed yet. If they do, can you post a link? Nothing is jumping out at me on Google, and PlanetAMD64 seems to be down this morning :|. Thanks.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: fatty4ksu
Good performance

but..TONS OF BUGS!!

Unstable.

And where are your screenshots of anything ? We don;t even believe you have one, so go away troll. And NO bugs for me, and 24/7 stability for months.