what's your overall impression of dual core?

[Mickey21]

I dont get what all the hostility is from the dual core owners. All I did was state what the op was looking for in the form of my own opinion, and every dual core owner in the world is magnetically drawn to my supposed "negative" comments. Like some sort of holy quest... Get this straight...

Been using computers for over 20 years now. No I am not 21 (ala Mickey21) so dont try treating me like one.

Second, I KNOW a dual core has two cores and in SMP capable software it will work better. I cant say that I KNOW that enough really. MY POINT and listen carefully, is that SMP capable software is a drop in the collective software bucket at this time and the AVERAGE user will not need it. Simply put, a generalized statement. If you are NOT the AVERAGE user, this is not directed towards you.

Third, yes Dual core processors can be very fast systems (I am not saying they arent), but single core systems are generally faster in single core based software (ie games and common applications). How can we sit around here argueing that single core based software are somehow going to go faster with the dual core they wont take advantage of? That just doesnt make sense at all. Sure the dual is fast, but in games, I will still take an FX-57 any day over the harder to overclock dual cores. Warning - I am NOT saying dual cores dont overclock, just that they are at a disadvantage at trying to overclock two cores simultaneously.

Fourth, no, I am not JUST a gamer. I do have several multiprocessor servers, racks, storage arrays, and high end switches. That is what I do to be productive at home. I am just not bringing that into play because it would seem to be irrelevant to the average user.

Fifth, if you want to argue gaming rigs and whats faster we can, but let me tell you I do have quite a bit of experience in that arena. Coming from the 1st Place winner at the just finished Quakecon 2005 Alienware Performance Challenge. I took home yet another FX-57 Dual SLI 7800GTX Alienware system worth over $6800 dollars for having the FASTEST GAMING computer there. 5000 gamers (including various dual cores overclocked in water as well as other FX-57's) didnt beat me, I think I did something right... http://www.alienware.com/intro_pages/quakecon05.aspx?source=1925

I am not flaming anyone, just defending that single cores are still very potent systems and not to rule them out....

 

[Technonut]

Fifth, if you want to argue gaming rigs and whats faster we can, but let me tell you I do have quite a bit of experience in that arena. Coming from the 1st Place winner at the just finished Quakecon 2005 Alienware Performance Challenge. I took home yet another FX-57 Dual SLI 7800GTX Alienware system worth over $6800 dollars for having the FASTEST GAMING computer there. 5000 gamers (including various dual cores overclocked in water as well as other FX-57's) didnt beat me, I think I did something right...

Impressive..... Nice going Mickey21.... :beer:

 

[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...

 

[Mickey21]

Originally posted by: Technonut

Fifth, if you want to argue gaming rigs and whats faster we can, but let me tell you I do have quite a bit of experience in that arena. Coming from the 1st Place winner at the just finished Quakecon 2005 Alienware Performance Challenge. I took home yet another FX-57 Dual SLI 7800GTX Alienware system worth over $6800 dollars for having the FASTEST GAMING computer there. 5000 gamers (including various dual cores overclocked in water as well as other FX-57's) didnt beat me, I think I did something right...

Impressive..... Nice going Mickey21.... :beer:

Thank you sir... Some really stiff competition I tell you. Didnt sleep for 48 hours tweaking every last ounce of power out of everything. The other FX-57's really gave me the best run. In fact the second place system was also an FX-57 and I only beat him in the end by 58 points (out of 20505). His biggest advantage was his quad RAID 0 74GB Raptors in the DOOM3 part of the tests. We were testing non-cached Doom3 so his drives gave him a thousand point gain... My wife has a new computer now...

I say the X2's didnt do well because the closest X2 to even get on the board was the guy who had a watercooled X2 4400 (running at 2.6GHZ) with DUAL 7800GTX. He scored a measely just over 17000. A similar equipped FX-55 got 25860 with DUAL 7800GTX's (Running at only 2.92GHZ). Over 8000 points more? Now that was fast and not even an FX-57. I competed in SINGLE GPU category (it was the better prize).

 

[Griffinhart]

No one is saying that the fastest Dual Core is faster than the FX57(though the FX55 can't make this claim in all games) in gaming. But, a stock 4800+ is not that much slower than a stock FX-57. All the benchmarks I have seen give results like 66 FPS to 71. Considering the stock performance isn't so fast to make a noticable difference in games having the "FASTEST GAMING computer" isn't all that important.

Single cores are very potent, and are currently the fastest computers for gaming, but Dual cores aren't slouches either. On top of that they are better at EVERYTHING ELSE. The total capabilities of dual core is far and away better than single core. So I have the choice between top end gaming and good at other tasks, or near top end gaming and outstanding at other tasks.

I say stock because you are specifically mentioning the "Average user". The Average user does not overclock. The "Average User" isn't going to be buying a $1000+ CPU either. So claiming that the average user is better off with the FX57 is just as unreasonable as expecting the average user to need a dual core 4800+.

I personally would never waste my money on $1000 CPU. I'm only willing to spend a max of $600 for any single componant and it needs to be something special for me to spend that. That would rule out the 4600/4800+ X2s and the FX55/57s.

 

[FirNaTine]

Mickey21 your profile lists you as Mike Roberts, but alienware's site (that you linked to) doesn't list you any where on the winner's board, you pulling a fast one on us?

 

[markrb38]

For those with dual cores are you using WinXP 64?
Do you see a difference with 32 bit apps running on WinXP 64 with Dual core as opposed to
32 bit apps running on a dual core with 32 bit Windows?

Mark

 

[Mickey21]

Originally posted by: Griffinhart
No one is saying that the fastest Dual Core is faster than the FX57(though the FX55 can't make this claim in all games) in gaming. But, a stock 4800+ is not that much slower than a stock FX-57. All the benchmarks I have seen give results like 66 FPS to 71. Considering the stock performance isn't so fast to make a noticable difference in games having the "FASTEST GAMING computer" isn't all that important.

Single cores are very potent, and are currently the fastest computers for gaming, but Dual cores aren't slouches either. On top of that they are better at EVERYTHING ELSE. The total capabilities of dual core is far and away better than single core. So I have the choice between top end gaming and good at other tasks, or near top end gaming and outstanding at other tasks.

I say stock because you are specifically mentioning the "Average user". The Average user does not overclock. The "Average User" isn't going to be buying a $1000+ CPU either. So claiming that the average user is better off with the FX57 is just as unreasonable as expecting the average user to need a dual core 4800+.

I personally would never waste my money on $1000 CPU. I'm only willing to spend a max of $600 for any single componant and it needs to be something special for me to spend that. That would rule out the 4600/4800+ X2s and the FX55/57s.

Who says I wasted my money???
In any case, at the same dollar amount, there is a respective single core that is worthy of the money spent... That is my point... Not saying superior, just worthy of use.

 

[Mickey21]

Originally posted by: FirNaTine
Mickey21 your profile lists you as Mike Roberts, but alienware's site (that you linked to) doesn't list you any where on the winner's board, you pulling a fast one on us?

Great work Watson, however my real name is not Mike Roberts... It's actually Amos Pena... Amos=Amouse=Mickey, the 21 comes from the day of my birth in September, being the 21st...

 

[StrangerGuy]

Dual-core >>> single-core. So what if it does means sacrificing a few FPS, as if dual-cores aren't fast enough for gaming and single-threaded apps. I'll rather have a much more responsive multitasking system anyday of the week.

 

[iwantanewcomputer]

no!!! unless you need it for two separate cpu intensive progs at the same time, which most don't, not worth it

 

[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...

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: iwantanewcomputer
no!!! unless you need it for two separate cpu intensive progs at the same time, which most don't, not worth it

Wrong as usual...the advantage is there for single progs as well..just not gamers...TMPGenc and other encoding apps, Folding at Home and other DC users, 3dsmax7 and other CAD rednering apps...you guys dont call them normal but ther eare more then you think.

Check out the reviews at Tech Report....a stock 4800+ which is 2.4ghz is faster then a stock 4000+ 130nm part as well as a stock FX55 2.6ghz....It is fast as any single core of like speed if not a hair faster.

It seems that the clinically retarded wont get this fact so I will stop stating it....

 

[MADMAX23]

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: iwantanewcomputer
no!!! unless you need it for two separate cpu intensive progs at the same time, which most don't, not worth it

Wrong as usual...the advantage is there for single progs as well..just not gamers...TMPGenc and other encoding apps, Folding at Home and other DC users, 3dsmax7 and other CAD rednering apps...you guys dont call them normal but ther eare more then you think.

Check out the reviews at Tech Report....a stock 4800+ which is 2.4ghz is faster then a stock 4000+ 130nm part as well as a stock FX55 2.6ghz....It is fast as any single core of like speed if not a hair faster.

It seems that the clinically retarded wont get this fact so I will stop stating it....

Then Duvie...why don't you take part into the SuperPi comp?

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: 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.

The 80.xx series Forceware are supposed to be multithreaded...
http://www.planetamd64.com/lofiversion/index.php/t8872.html

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: MADMAX23

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: iwantanewcomputer
no!!! unless you need it for two separate cpu intensive progs at the same time, which most don't, not worth it

Wrong as usual...the advantage is there for single progs as well..just not gamers...TMPGenc and other encoding apps, Folding at Home and other DC users, 3dsmax7 and other CAD rednering apps...you guys dont call them normal but ther eare more then you think.

Check out the reviews at Tech Report....a stock 4800+ which is 2.4ghz is faster then a stock 4000+ 130nm part as well as a stock FX55 2.6ghz....It is fast as any single core of like speed if not a hair faster.

It seems that the clinically retarded wont get this fact so I will stop stating it....

Then Duvie...why don't you take part into the SuperPi comp?

I may do it when I get my sons PC up...The SSE3 modded version I ma have to run to see if it helps any at all....

I still will rather put an X2 in competition of apps that are multithreaded. It show us the effectiveness of the second core.

How about we say run 1 instance of superpi while doing somehting else...or perhaps we can say if I run 2instances at good speed it should have a scale factor in terms of performance points...otherwise I dont see any revelation it will show me that I already dont know form the other 2 superpi competition threads....N

Now cyrstalmark in all of its synthetic crap glory at least showed something..placing them into sub categories was fine and still made it nice. You are basically excluding man of us new users from really seeing what this chip can do. So the time it takes me to shut off my 2nd instance of FH...rerun all the benches...maybe tweak and rerun them again amounts to hours and hours of time I could be getting units done....

 

[Markfw]

You can;t run 2xsuperpi on a dual cpu box (my opterons) or dual-core. It gives you "not convergent in sqr05" or something like that. Try it on two 2m runs. I did both boxes, including my X2 at stock speed.

 

[piddlefoot]

i have my first duel core and as a gamer, mainly i can say nothing has done it as easy as this 4400+, even games are WAY better, l have an fx55 its awsome in single thread games and pumps the res n textures , but online the fx55 would suffer lag spikes [ bf2 ] as l have a firewall and viris scanner running and the inpact could chopp chopp sometimes, but duel core , chop chop GONE TOTALLY , smooth as, the 4400+ is 2.2 each clock, its like playing on an amd 3200+ and letting another 3200+ run the backround tasks, and boy does the game appreciate the extra oommff, yea theres little dought, duel pwns single, l play on my 4400+ now not the fx55 ! The fx55 is an awsome dedicated server though !
I cant see me going back to single, i think its the way of the future , and was bound to happen sooner or later.
Ok the fx55 can play a game at higher res settings and higher detail, its got a fast core, and in hl2 l notice the fx55 can have slightly higher settings, which is pretty, but , online the duel comes out infront cause of backround tasks, so if you only play games and not on;ine [howd you read this ! ] get an fx55, if your online gamer get a duel, its only a matter of time until we see the AMD fx duel core gamer chips !

 

[Intelia]

I think that Amd's 2 core is wonderful . But I still am confused why Intel wanted to go down this road. Zinn2b says 2or more cores are fantastic if correctly implemented. he also mentioned that parallelism means differant things to differant people.

Right now to me it looks like Amd did it right. Intel on the other hand doesn't look so good. What the hay things could be differant in 9 months really haven't a clue.

 

[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.

 

[Intelia]

Your right in your statement . But hardware sites make their bread and butter off of reviews . Thats what brings the sheep in from the pasturies. Dam sheep dogs

 

[CrimsonCutie]

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: Markfw900
I will never buy another single-core for myself. Once you are a power user, and have many things open that are taxing, you can see the difference night and day.

i second this....I will never buy a single core cpu again....

 

[subzero813]

Originally posted by: TheStigma
In the short run, I'd rather have single-cores. Multicores right now are a waste of resources except for power-workstations where you actually keep multiple processes going all the time while working.

However, multicores are definately the way to gain incredible processing power for the future. Its going to be a slow and painful transition getting multi-threaded software to become the standard, but after thats done we will never be CPU-bound ever again, only cash-bound =)

Just immagine a dual-slot motherboard with 2 top-end quad-cores, all being able to work towards the same process (say a game app). That would easily be the equivalent of having a 20Ghz sincle-core CPU right now, and thats not even considering the general speed advances that will come by then.

So no, I wont be buying dualcore for a long while I predict (atleast not until 2-3 years from now I think), but when multithreading starts going mainstream, il be THERE baby! =)

-Stigma

major games in 2006 will be multi-threaded. they have to be, because two small consoles which you might have heard of, the Xbox360 and the PlayStation3 use multiprocessors/multicores, and developers are going to end up releasing games ported to all 3, and having all of them multithreaded will be easy.

Epic Games is already on it, with Unreal Engine 3.0 which powers UT2007, Gears of War, and Huxley, and is being licensed by a bunch of other studios.

i am also certain (don't quote me on it) you will see release of patches with multithreaded-capable binaries for Quake 4 and other Doom 3-engined games by mid-late 2006 (to compete with Epic if nothing else).

 

[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?

 

[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...