When I first heard about multiple CPU motherboards back in the PII days I thought for sure they would be the way of the future. But now today they are as rare as when first released. Why? Is it because of the price? To me it seems better to have a dual 1gig+ computer that can multitask very well rather then a 3gig CPU that can do 1 thing at a time really fast.
Why haven't dual CPU computers become more popular?
- Thread starter IamDavid
- Start date
I thought MS OS's supported them for multitasking, just not for one program unless it was specifically written to do so..
mechBgon
Super Moderator<br>Elite Member
- Oct 31, 1999
- 30,699
- 1
- 0
Expensive motherboards
Greater power and cooling demands & associated expenses
Slower at gaming
Often built to be used in servers, therefore Registered ECC memory used in many (expensive)
I had a dual-P3 733 that I built for office work, thinking it would have one CPU free to handle tasks and the other for background stuff like virus scanning, etc. I replaced it with a single 1.46GHz CPU (AthlonXP) and the performance increase was very noticable in daily use, even though the total MHz was the same. They're not perfect for everything.
Greater power and cooling demands & associated expenses
Slower at gaming
Often built to be used in servers, therefore Registered ECC memory used in many (expensive)
I had a dual-P3 733 that I built for office work, thinking it would have one CPU free to handle tasks and the other for background stuff like virus scanning, etc. I replaced it with a single 1.46GHz CPU (AthlonXP) and the performance increase was very noticable in daily use, even though the total MHz was the same. They're not perfect for everything.
BFG10K
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2000
- 22,709
- 2,997
- 126
I think it's because single-CPU solutions are much cheaper but also keep getting faster and faster too. For the general public a single CPU does just fine, especially in games that don't really show any benefit from SMP.
Uh, so does NT4/2000/XP Pro.linux does though
Originally posted by: BFG10K
I think it's because single-CPU solutions are much cheaper but also keep getting faster and faster too. For the general public a single CPU does just fine, especially in games that don't really show any benefit from SMP.
Uh, so does NT4/2000/XP Pro.linux does though
How many average home users have XP Pro, 2K or NT4? Not as many as have XP Home.
Mind you, most people who would build a dual processor system would probably have 2K/XP Pro so it's a moot point I suppose.
Even some SMP-aware programs like PhotoShop don't use the second processor effectively for most tasks (search "PhotoShop" here for Mac-vs-PC single and dual CPU).
Only a tiny fraction of users want and will pay for something faster than whatever the current sweet spot is for a midrange PC (2.4 - 2.6 GHz at this time), and most of those users will get more speed (for their applications) out of a 3 GHz than they would with 2 x 2.x GHz setup. Or they're in the tiny, tiny minority that can justify the insane prices for a dual Xeon setup.
Only a tiny fraction of users want and will pay for something faster than whatever the current sweet spot is for a midrange PC (2.4 - 2.6 GHz at this time), and most of those users will get more speed (for their applications) out of a 3 GHz than they would with 2 x 2.x GHz setup. Or they're in the tiny, tiny minority that can justify the insane prices for a dual Xeon setup.
If there was 1) a decent performance boost in applications people actually use, 2) if cost wasn't a factor and if 3) everyone had SMP OSes by default, you would see demand for dual CPUs increase.
Wolfsraider
Diamond Member
- Jan 27, 2002
- 8,305
- 0
- 76
cost is a major factor
most people can't afford to add 200.00 or more for a second cpu as it means a better monitor ,video card in an already tight budget
plus add the others already listed in the thread like ie unless the software is configured to use more than one processor the other is usually idle/unstressed the majority of the time
i would rather have faster "single" components like scsi hdd and better video card than chance adding a second cpu that i may never utilize to its full extent
though the thought of dual 3 ghz processors are nice, it would be impractible(sp) in my use
imho
mike
most people can't afford to add 200.00 or more for a second cpu as it means a better monitor ,video card in an already tight budget
plus add the others already listed in the thread like ie unless the software is configured to use more than one processor the other is usually idle/unstressed the majority of the time
i would rather have faster "single" components like scsi hdd and better video card than chance adding a second cpu that i may never utilize to its full extent
though the thought of dual 3 ghz processors are nice, it would be impractible(sp) in my use
imho
mike
Nearly all app's can't take advantage of the second CPU, and games certianly can not. wonder how well hyperthreading will work?
brandon
brandon
Because enthusiasts love to upgrade. Mom and pop computers stay the same.
Mom and pop computers get bought at 500mhz, work at 500mhz, get retired at 500mhz.
Enthusiast computers have 1600+ chips, then 1800+, then 2200+, then 2400+ (substitute iNTEL)
Takes all the fun out of it when your bill doubles each time, especially if you have to buy MPs instead of XPs (substitute iNTEL) for dual processor fun.
Mom and pop computers get bought at 500mhz, work at 500mhz, get retired at 500mhz.
Enthusiast computers have 1600+ chips, then 1800+, then 2200+, then 2400+ (substitute iNTEL)
Takes all the fun out of it when your bill doubles each time, especially if you have to buy MPs instead of XPs (substitute iNTEL) for dual processor fun.
Don't the new P4 3 GHz CPUs have hyperthreading? Hyperthreading I think will be more efficient than dual processors but will have the same desired effect.
A lot has to do with costs. Back when I bought my BP6 with dual celerons (366mhz @ 550), the cost factor was right on the money. Intel later made celerons incompatible with smp, so rigging up dual pentiums just wasn't worth the money for your typical enthusiast. Now, costs of dualie motherboards are just too high when a faster ghz single cpu is a cheaper option. Add to that a general lack of smp capable applications (and most games), you just don't see very many committed to smp use. I love my dualie celeron bp6 rig, even though it has relatively weak power, the win2k interface is very snappy without the hickups even my 2.7ghz single cpu gets when an application ties the cpu up -- hyperthreading is course going to solve that problem, so smp users will probably go even further downhill.
yep. the newest p4's have'em. they are suppose to do the same thing with multi cpu's with apps that can use multi cpu's but only using a single cpu, ie, making multi-tasking 10x more usefull. sounds promising.
brandon
Originally posted by: Bojangles139
yep. the newest p4's have'em. they are suppose to do the same thing with multi cpu's with apps that can use multi cpu's but only using a single cpu, ie, making multi-tasking 10x more usefull. sounds promising.
brandon
Yeah I know. I just hope AMD comes out with a CPU that has hyperthreading. Everything will run smoother.
Hyperthreading will never be more effective than having two Physical CPUs as it's only using spare execution units rather than having a separate set altogether. It gives a good boost but less than dual CPUs would. It's interesting though, that dual HT Xeons show up as 4 logical CPUs...Originally posted by: CallTheFBI
Originally posted by: Bojangles139
yep. the newest p4's have'em. they are suppose to do the same thing with multi cpu's with apps that can use multi cpu's but only using a single cpu, ie, making multi-tasking 10x more usefull. sounds promising.
brandon
Yeah I know. I just hope AMD comes out with a CPU that has hyperthreading. Everything will run smoother.
I think the reason dual CPUs havnt caught on is that the average user doesnt do anything that would benefit from them. Unless you're doing things like media encoding, rendering or heavy multitasking there are few performance gains.
I dont see why all this buzz on HT is circulating. Geez Xeon has had HT for quite a while and it has always struggled to beat the Athlon MP series.
That's because the version of HyperThreading on the 3.06GHz Pentium 4 is different to the HT on the older XEONs. Performance is significantly better.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
pretendf u had 200 dollars and could buy either 1 2ghz processor, or 2 1 ghz processor. the 2 ghz processor could run newest games at a decent speed. the 2 1ghz processors could run your game at a sluggish speed, but could encode an mp3 at the same time. which would you choose?
this is already excluding the cost of a more powerful power supply and possibly more ram/higher cost m/b already. if those price differences were included your dual cpu option would basically be dog slow compared to the single processor system you could buy.
this is already excluding the cost of a more powerful power supply and possibly more ram/higher cost m/b already. if those price differences were included your dual cpu option would basically be dog slow compared to the single processor system you could buy.
Cost and benefit are the main overall reasons.
The programs and OS to support dual or more are rare and the upgrade cycle is so quick for us that its too expensive. Servers are the main application and they're aimed at businesses.
The programs and OS to support dual or more are rare and the upgrade cycle is so quick for us that its too expensive. Servers are the main application and they're aimed at businesses.
BurnItDwn
Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 26,220
- 1,703
- 126
I dont have dual CPUs because im not running a DB server or anything that would run much better with two.
Also .. (at least on the AMD side) there is no Great chipset for dual CPUs ... If they came out with like an Nforce2 SMP ... than I'd think about it ... but as it stands ... the Dual Proc AMD boards cant game worth crap
Also .. (at least on the AMD side) there is no Great chipset for dual CPUs ... If they came out with like an Nforce2 SMP ... than I'd think about it ... but as it stands ... the Dual Proc AMD boards cant game worth crap
I have a dual P3 server (with P3-S 1.26GHz!) at my home right now... that I'm currently using to do some finite-element runs. Its a wonderful machine... and great to work with... but I think the MAIN reason is that a home user REALLY can't exploit it. Megahertz for megahertz (or a measure of performance--which is better), a single processor is really cheaper. You can easily purchase a 2GHz chip for what two SMP capable 1GHz chips cost. Plus, you can't think of CPUs linearly adding--they do SHARE resources such as RAM and the hard drives.
I think the BIG barrier, though, is software. Because, in my opinion, there's no benefit to SMP if you're not running multi-threaded apps. Sure, you can "multi-task" well... but in all honesty, with as cheap as computer components are, buy a second computer (with a second hard drive, etc etc etc) and a KVM switch. I personally decided, that with my own money, that's what I would do.... when I lock up my P4 with a FE run, I just switch over to my old P3-933... which handles any "minor" work I need to do (word processing, browsing, email... even doing the math for my homework).
Now, dual machines do have their place in servers (where multiple people are putting large demands on the system) and computational systems where you can make multiple "runs" on the same machine--or "thread" your program to use multiple CPUs.
But for the home user, stick with a single processor. I think you'll see more benefit spending the extra cash (which is a lot--expensive motherboards with no onboard features, an extra processor, and typically registered RAM) elsewhere. Go SCSI for the cash.
I think the BIG barrier, though, is software. Because, in my opinion, there's no benefit to SMP if you're not running multi-threaded apps. Sure, you can "multi-task" well... but in all honesty, with as cheap as computer components are, buy a second computer (with a second hard drive, etc etc etc) and a KVM switch. I personally decided, that with my own money, that's what I would do.... when I lock up my P4 with a FE run, I just switch over to my old P3-933... which handles any "minor" work I need to do (word processing, browsing, email... even doing the math for my homework).
Now, dual machines do have their place in servers (where multiple people are putting large demands on the system) and computational systems where you can make multiple "runs" on the same machine--or "thread" your program to use multiple CPUs.
But for the home user, stick with a single processor. I think you'll see more benefit spending the extra cash (which is a lot--expensive motherboards with no onboard features, an extra processor, and typically registered RAM) elsewhere. Go SCSI for the cash.
ok, with traditional dualies, you can't run a video editing program, then rip an mp3 on the second proccessor. you can't specify which app to run on which processor, that is where the HT comes in. it realize's two apps are running and will seperate them, one goin to the primary thread and the second to the secondary thread. thats where the power of HT comes in, or at least how i've taken what i've read about it, please correct me if i'm wrong.
brandon
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 18K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter