Hi guys. At the moment, as we all know, dual core processors are much
more expensive than their single core counterparts.
My question is whether it is worth getting dual core processors, even
IF they were in a similar price range to single cores. For example,
take a look at the benchmark results below. Even though the Athlon 64
X2 4800+ beats the Athlon 64 4000+ CPU, it only does so by a small
margin. Considering the X2 is 4800+ rated and the single core is only
4000+ rated, shouldn't a single core 4800+ beat the X2 4800+ (assuming
you could get a single core to that speed by overclocking)
IMVHO, it would only be worth getting a dual core if it was much
cheaper. The price/performance ratio of X2 CPUs isn't as good as a
single core CPU at the moment.
You are, after all, losing CPU cycles in the overhead to maintain
parallel processing. Isn't the whole point of parallel processors their
lower cost?
"Random Person" <nonexistent2032@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1125240222.758102.309970@o13g2000cwo.googlegr oups.com...
> Hi guys. At the moment, as we all know, dual core processors are much
> more expensive than their single core counterparts.
>
> My question is whether it is worth getting dual core processors, even
> IF they were in a similar price range to single cores. For example,
> take a look at the benchmark results below. Even though the Athlon 64
> X2 4800+ beats the Athlon 64 4000+ CPU, it only does so by a small
> margin. Considering the X2 is 4800+ rated and the single core is only
> 4000+ rated, shouldn't a single core 4800+ beat the X2 4800+ (assuming
> you could get a single core to that speed by overclocking)
>
> http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2005...chmark_results
>
> IMVHO, it would only be worth getting a dual core if it was much
> cheaper. The price/performance ratio of X2 CPUs isn't as good as a
> single core CPU at the moment.
>
> You are, after all, losing CPU cycles in the overhead to maintain
> parallel processing. Isn't the whole point of parallel processors their
> lower cost?
>
Is it worth it?...absolutely not!
These dual core CPU's will really shine when "multi-threaded software"
(games, apps, etc.) hit it big. As for now, just a big hype with little
boost in performance.
Also, remember if you are using the newer 939 chipset you already have a
dual core capable motherboard ready to upgrade to the X2's in a year when
their price is right.
--
"I don't cheat to survive. I cheat to LIVE!!"
- Alceryes
So when you're talking about dual cores and their applicability to
multi-threaded software, if the computer is going to be "single tasked"
(i.e. left almost 24/7 solving a single problem with a single program)
you're best off with a single core CPU?
So the only time a dual core would be worth it for a single task would
be if it offers a much cheaper alternative to single cores on a
cost/FLOP basis?
even if you're doing only 1 task on 1 program, if the program supports
multiple processors.. i.e photoshop,premiere,3ds etc.. it will run much
faster than a single processor would
Random Person wrote:
> So when you're talking about dual cores and their applicability to
> multi-threaded software, if the computer is going to be "single tasked"
> (i.e. left almost 24/7 solving a single problem with a single program)
> you're best off with a single core CPU?
>
> So the only time a dual core would be worth it for a single task would
> be if it offers a much cheaper alternative to single cores on a
> cost/FLOP basis?
Just to clarify: Is the parallelisation in dual cores "transparent" or
does the application need to have instructions within it that call for
multiple processors?
On 28 Aug 2005 08:51:54 -0700, "Random Person"
<nonexistent2032@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Just to clarify: Is the parallelisation in dual cores "transparent" or
>does the application need to have instructions within it that call for
>multiple processors?
It has to have multiple threads with significant parallel
processing diverted to more than one thread. So to an
extent, yes the app has to be written with the possibility
of multiple CPUs in mind.
The transparency factor would come from running multiple
apps, and/or OS, antivirus, etc, simultaneously. Generally
it is not of much benefit to try and focus on single vs
multiple cores for particular tasks rather than seeking
actual benchmarks of the app as it may be more suited to
certain CPU architectures and/or optimized for one more than
(or better than) another.
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:15t3h1950ikgasdt4iisb3j5h2iifm48p6@4ax.com...
> On 28 Aug 2005 08:51:54 -0700, "Random Person"
> <nonexistent2032@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Just to clarify: Is the parallelisation in dual cores "transparent" or
>>does the application need to have instructions within it that call for
>>multiple processors?
>
> It has to have multiple threads with significant parallel
> processing diverted to more than one thread. So to an
> extent, yes the app has to be written with the possibility
> of multiple CPUs in mind.
>
> The transparency factor would come from running multiple
> apps, and/or OS, antivirus, etc, simultaneously. Generally
> it is not of much benefit to try and focus on single vs
> multiple cores for particular tasks rather than seeking
> actual benchmarks of the app as it may be more suited to
> certain CPU architectures and/or optimized for one more than
> (or better than) another.
Probably a daft questin but would dual core help when, for example, you're
running a game and you want to run AV/Firewall SW at the same time.
Currently running a A64 3200+ (2 GB RAM, 256MB GT6800) I generally turn off
AV SW (and othere apps) if I'm running a game such as HL2 or the FEAR demo.
Would I *need* to do this with a DC CPU?
"Alceryes" <replytopost@thankyou.com> wrote in message
news:AfkQe.3186$9i4.641@newsread2.news.atl.earthli nk.net...
>
> "Random Person" <nonexistent2032@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1125240222.758102.309970@o13g2000cwo.googlegr oups.com...
>> Hi guys. At the moment, as we all know, dual core processors are much
>> more expensive than their single core counterparts.
>>
>> My question is whether it is worth getting dual core processors, even
>> IF they were in a similar price range to single cores. For example,
>> take a look at the benchmark results below. Even though the Athlon 64
>> X2 4800+ beats the Athlon 64 4000+ CPU, it only does so by a small
>> margin. Considering the X2 is 4800+ rated and the single core is only
>> 4000+ rated, shouldn't a single core 4800+ beat the X2 4800+ (assuming
>> you could get a single core to that speed by overclocking)
>>
>> http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2005...chmark_results
>>
>> IMVHO, it would only be worth getting a dual core if it was much
>> cheaper. The price/performance ratio of X2 CPUs isn't as good as a
>> single core CPU at the moment.
>>
>> You are, after all, losing CPU cycles in the overhead to maintain
>> parallel processing. Isn't the whole point of parallel processors their
>> lower cost?
>>
>
>
> Is it worth it?...absolutely not!
> These dual core CPU's will really shine when "multi-threaded software"
> (games, apps, etc.) hit it big. As for now, just a big hype with little
> boost in performance.
> Also, remember if you are using the newer 939 chipset you already have a
> dual core capable motherboard ready to upgrade to the X2's in a year when
> their price is right.
Except this time next year the dual cores might use DDR2, and therefore need
a new motherboard.
It might help a little. Although since antivirus scans access the hard
drive a lot, I think the bottleneck would be your hard drives instead
of the CPU. Of course if you are scanning your hard drive on a
different IDE channel to your game's HD...
> even if you're doing only 1 task on 1 program, if the program supports
> multiple processors.. i.e photoshop,premiere,3ds etc.. it will run much
> faster than a single processor would
On that same note...has anyone seen any benches comparing a single and dual
core CPU's with those few proggies that are optimized for multi-threading?
Initial guesstimates (based on hardware alone) said something like an 80%
boost in performance would be "possible". However, I think the
multi-threaded programming itself would have to get MUCH better before we
see anything close to this.
--
"I don't cheat to survive. I cheat to LIVE!!"
- Alceryes
"BlastUK" <BlastUK@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1125243893.039392.14620@o13g2000cwo.googlegro ups.com...
> even if you're doing only 1 task on 1 program, if the program supports
> multiple processors.. i.e photoshop,premiere,3ds etc.. it will run much
> faster than a single processor would
> Random Person wrote:
>> So when you're talking about dual cores and their applicability to
>> multi-threaded software, if the computer is going to be "single tasked"
>> (i.e. left almost 24/7 solving a single problem with a single program)
>> you're best off with a single core CPU?
>>
>> So the only time a dual core would be worth it for a single task would
>> be if it offers a much cheaper alternative to single cores on a
>> cost/FLOP basis?
>
On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 18:25:26 GMT, "BillL"
<billc1@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Probably a daft questin but would dual core help when, for example, you're
>running a game and you want to run AV/Firewall SW at the same time.
>Currently running a A64 3200+ (2 GB RAM, 256MB GT6800) I generally turn off
>AV SW (and othere apps) if I'm running a game such as HL2 or the FEAR demo.
>Would I *need* to do this with a DC CPU?
How much of a performance increase do you see by shutting
down and/or disabling these apps?
While a higher performance dual-core CPU can help, so can a
higher performance single-core CPU. The vast majority of
CPU time will be spend on the game so the best performance
for the game will come with the fastest *single* core,
whether that single core be a single core CPU or one of the
cores in a dual core CPU. Your focus should be on the
fastest "1st" core possible and then IF you can get a 2nd
core involved, so much the better. Ultimately shutting down
the AV/FW/etc should speed things up regardless of 1 or 2
cores, _but_ is the performance different enough to be
significant? I would've thought your current setup could
play HL2 with AV and FW running.
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:8v94h1dgu7q7vvt3rohn445am7p47oh59a@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 18:25:26 GMT, "BillL"
> <billc1@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>Probably a daft questin but would dual core help when, for example, you're
>>running a game and you want to run AV/Firewall SW at the same time.
>>Currently running a A64 3200+ (2 GB RAM, 256MB GT6800) I generally turn
>>off
>>AV SW (and othere apps) if I'm running a game such as HL2 or the FEAR
>>demo.
>>Would I *need* to do this with a DC CPU?
>
> How much of a performance increase do you see by shutting
> down and/or disabling these apps?
>
> While a higher performance dual-core CPU can help, so can a
> higher performance single-core CPU. The vast majority of
> CPU time will be spend on the game so the best performance
> for the game will come with the fastest *single* core,
> whether that single core be a single core CPU or one of the
> cores in a dual core CPU. Your focus should be on the
> fastest "1st" core possible and then IF you can get a 2nd
> core involved, so much the better. Ultimately shutting down
> the AV/FW/etc should speed things up regardless of 1 or 2
> cores, _but_ is the performance different enough to be
> significant? I would've thought your current setup could
> play HL2 with AV and FW running.
You're probably right there and I guess with an always on connection it'd be
better to have the FW & AV running all the time. I wont be in a position to
upgrade the CPU for sometime anyhow and by the time I am there will be DDR2
AMD boards anyhow (probably DDR4 and Intel/M$/nVidia will be running the
planet by the time I can afford to!! ;o).
> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 18:25:26 GMT, "BillL"
> <billc1@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>Probably a daft questin but would dual core help when, for example, you're
>>running a game and you want to run AV/Firewall SW at the same time.
>>Currently running a A64 3200+ (2 GB RAM, 256MB GT6800) I generally turn off
>>AV SW (and othere apps) if I'm running a game such as HL2 or the FEAR demo.
>>Would I *need* to do this with a DC CPU?
>
> How much of a performance increase do you see by shutting
> down and/or disabling these apps?
>
> While a higher performance dual-core CPU can help, so can a
> higher performance single-core CPU. The vast majority of
> CPU time will be spend on the game so the best performance
> for the game will come with the fastest *single* core,
> whether that single core be a single core CPU or one of the
> cores in a dual core CPU. Your focus should be on the
> fastest "1st" core possible and then IF you can get a 2nd
> core involved, so much the better. Ultimately shutting down
> the AV/FW/etc should speed things up regardless of 1 or 2
> cores, _but_ is the performance different enough to be
> significant? I would've thought your current setup could
> play HL2 with AV and FW running.
In theory a faster uniprocessor is better than a multiprocessor. However
the problem is that the performance range in a processor family is so
narrow that you really can't buy a significantly faster processor. The
3200+ is a 2GHz processor, the faster uniprocessor member of the A64
family is the FX 57 which is 2.8GHz which is 1.44x faster then the 3200
which is enough that you'll notice the difference but just barely. It's
also 5X the price, $1020 which doesn't make it a very good option. If you
are running an application that's sensitive to cache size then you'll see
a bigger jump with the FX57 because it has a 1M cache vs 1/2 on the 3200.
However the 4000+ and the X2 4400+ also have 1M caches and they are both
significantly cheaper, the 4000+ is $367 and the 4400+ is $540. In
multitasking environment the 4400+ is the clear winner, it adds a couple
of hundred bucks to the system cost but it will deliver nearly twice the
throughput. In the case of the OP who is just running games the choice is
less clear. If turning off the anti-virus software really does produce a
noticeable difference, I'll have to take the OP's word for it I run Linux
so I don't have any personal knowledge of impact of antivirus
software, then I'd say there is enough background work going on that he
really will see a difference with a 4400+. Each core is a little faster
then his current processor, they run at 2.2GHz and have 1M caches, and the
second core will certainly be able to suck up all of his background tasks
so that the system should perform a little better then his current system
does when he turns off of all of the antivirus software.
On 28 Aug 2005 07:43:42 -0700, "Random Person"
<nonexistent2032@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Hi guys. At the moment, as we all know, dual core processors are much
>more expensive than their single core counterparts.
>
>My question is whether it is worth getting dual core processors, even
>IF they were in a similar price range to single cores. For example,
>take a look at the benchmark results below. Even though the Athlon 64
>X2 4800+ beats the Athlon 64 4000+ CPU, it only does so by a small
>margin. Considering the X2 is 4800+ rated and the single core is only
>4000+ rated, shouldn't a single core 4800+ beat the X2 4800+ (assuming
>you could get a single core to that speed by overclocking)
>
>http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2005...chmark_results
>
>IMVHO, it would only be worth getting a dual core if it was much
>cheaper. The price/performance ratio of X2 CPUs isn't as good as a
>single core CPU at the moment.
>
>You are, after all, losing CPU cycles in the overhead to maintain
>parallel processing. Isn't the whole point of parallel processors their
>lower cost?
In this review the dual core is slower than the single core
counterpart . Its fast in things like audio encoding and rendering
still this guy is really up on dual cores. At this point Im thinking
about one unless theres a big gap between the single core and dual
core on almost all the tasks for me. Im mainly thinking about certain
chores I do when I using multiple apps and other things like using
TMPGEnc for video encoding etc that really bog my system down. Thats
where I want to see big improvements. If someone posts there is little
improvement in these areas then I might change my mind but at this
point Im leaning towards dual core though Im not totally sure it will
benefit me. Im also thinking about one Raptor or even RAID again
despite the fact Anandtech had that test which showed little real
world improvements in RAID for most people.
Some tasks that really bug me. At this point news groups are getting
so huge Agent to increase the max headers it could get cause there are
so many now a while ago. Well when you do a search of a newsgroup the
thing actually freezes for a few minutes. When you compress a
newsgroup it seems to take forever. Just lot of stuff like that. Id
also like to do a chore like and do something else if taking a while
is unavoidable --- not have it bog my system down so other chores
arent slowed down. Also TMPGenc or other video progs, Ive posted I do
see a big improvement going from my old AMD 3200 XP to the AMD 64
system. When Id use the old 3200 nforce2 with the same memory 1 gig,
it would totally bog my system down. Couldnt really do much else and
it could take hours ! Now I can do other chores while using TMPGenc
but there is still some effect. If there is a significant improvement
in this area I would welcome it.
Also lots of thing where its going to my Hard Disk --- slows my system
down. Thats why Im thinking raid or raptor. I know as anandtech
pointed out that super big improvements in most tasks is probably an
illusion - RAID tends to look great on synthetic benchmarks but not
most single task real world tests. But does it offer any significant
advantage in multitasking heavy disk usage ? Im also thinking NCQ and
the latest SATA HDs which Anandtech seemed to think actually had
improvements with multitasking tasks. I might get one of those instead
of a raptor or raiding it.
Its certain areas Im thinking about which annoy me rather overall pure
speed since as people point out you arent going to see humongoid speed
jumps just by going from a 3200 AMD 64 to a faster single core
probably. Certain annoying bottle necks Id like to fix.
So unless I get a clear picture by around Xmas that a dual core
probably wont make a big difference in a lot of the areas which annoy
me -- Ill probably get one when the price comes down. People with a
chip already can sell their old chip to offset the cost of the new X2
so with a price decline if the cost is only say 200-250 to upgrade to
an X2 with the proceeds from the old chip too of course then its not
such a big outlay.
In fact, now that the entry point for dual-core Athlon 64 processors
has dropped to $354, I am almost ready to stop recommending
single-core processors for anything but budget PCs. Unless you
absolutely cannot afford it, I'd suggest picking a dual-core CPU for
your next system. Even for gamers, there's little point in passing on
a second CPU core just to get a somewhat higher clock speed, in my
view. The X2 3800+ is more than passable for today's games, and
multithreaded game engines and graphics drivers are already on the
horizon. For anything but games, having a second CPU around, even if
it's just to handle antivirus and antispyware chores, makes perfect
sense.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to step out of the way. AMD says
these chips should be available for purchase right now. If most X2
3800+ chips overclock like our review sample did, then PC enthusiasts
are going to stampede toward this thing en masse.
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 01:41:40 GMT, "John@Smith.com"
<xxxxspud@newscene.com> wrote:
>
>In this review the dual core is slower than the single core
>counterpart . Its fast in things like audio encoding and rendering
>still this guy is really up on dual cores. At this point Im thinking
>about one unless theres a big gap between the single core and dual
>core on almost all the tasks for me. Im mainly thinking about certain
>chores I do when I using multiple apps and other things like using
>TMPGEnc for video encoding etc that really bog my system down. Thats
>where I want to see big improvements. If someone posts there is little
>improvement in these areas then I might change my mind but at this
>point Im leaning towards dual core though Im not totally sure it will
>benefit me. Im also thinking about one Raptor or even RAID again
>despite the fact Anandtech had that test which showed little real
>world improvements in RAID for most people.
Yeesh dropping words from my sentences like crazy. I must be more
tired than I thought.
"Random Person" <nonexistent2032@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1125240222.758102.309970@o13g2000cwo.googlegr oups.com...
> Hi guys. At the moment, as we all know, dual core processors are much
> more expensive than their single core counterparts.
>
> My question is whether it is worth getting dual core processors, even
> IF they were in a similar price range to single cores. For example,
> take a look at the benchmark results below. Even though the Athlon 64
> X2 4800+ beats the Athlon 64 4000+ CPU, it only does so by a small
> margin. Considering the X2 is 4800+ rated and the single core is only
> 4000+ rated, shouldn't a single core 4800+ beat the X2 4800+ (assuming
> you could get a single core to that speed by overclocking)
>
> http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2005...chmark_results
>
> IMVHO, it would only be worth getting a dual core if it was much
> cheaper. The price/performance ratio of X2 CPUs isn't as good as a
> single core CPU at the moment.
>
> You are, after all, losing CPU cycles in the overhead to maintain
> parallel processing. Isn't the whole point of parallel processors their
> lower cost?
>
On top of the question about the hypothetic performance increase, there is
the big issue of power consumption and related heat dissipation. The psu
will have to deliver 500 W or more, and you will have to provide special cpu
cooling, as stock ones are insufficient and noisy.
>
> On top of the question about the hypothetic performance increase, there is
> the big issue of power consumption and related heat dissipation. The psu
> will have to deliver 500 W or more, and you will have to provide special cpu
> cooling, as stock ones are insufficient and noisy.
The power consumption of the Athlon 64 X2 is reasonable, it's less then a
single core P4. The stock coolers should be fine but you can always do
better with a third party cooler, I have the Thermaltake A1838 on my X2
system. I also have an Enermax EG565P-FMA REV.2.0 ATX 535W power supply in
the system. I would have chosen exactly the same cooler and power supply
for a single core system. The Enermax supply cost $89, the Thermaltake
cooler cost $25, but of course an OEM processor is cheaper than a retail
CPU so the delta in cost is actually much smaller.
"General Schvantzkoph" <schvantzkoph@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.08.29.13.04.31.988593@yahoo.com...
>>
>> On top of the question about the hypothetic performance increase, there
>> is
>> the big issue of power consumption and related heat dissipation. The psu
>> will have to deliver 500 W or more, and you will have to provide special
>> cpu
>> cooling, as stock ones are insufficient and noisy.
>
> The power consumption of the Athlon 64 X2 is reasonable, it's less then a
> single core P4. The stock coolers should be fine but you can always do
> better with a third party cooler, I have the Thermaltake A1838 on my X2
> system. I also have an Enermax EG565P-FMA REV.2.0 ATX 535W power supply in
> the system. I would have chosen exactly the same cooler and power supply
> for a single core system. The Enermax supply cost $89, the Thermaltake
> cooler cost $25, but of course an OEM processor is cheaper than a retail
> CPU so the delta in cost is actually much smaller.
>
You're right. I was thinking about Pentium dual cores, that need twice as
much power as the fastest Athlon. Unacceptable in my opinion, and time for
Intel to wake up !!!
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 13:45:16 GMT, "ElJerid"
<s.vanderhaeghen@pandora.be> wrote:
>
>You're right. I was thinking about Pentium dual cores, that need twice as
>much power as the fastest Athlon. Unacceptable in my opinion, and time for
>Intel to wake up !!!
>
They have woken up, future CPUs will make the P4 look
horrible. Essentially AMD forced Intel's hand, they had to
ramp up P4 before they had next-gen hardware ready to
counter.
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:lld6h1pnsqlg189ipli8560ggobmf0f5g7@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 13:45:16 GMT, "ElJerid"
> <s.vanderhaeghen@pandora.be> wrote:
>
>>
>
>>You're right. I was thinking about Pentium dual cores, that need twice as
>>much power as the fastest Athlon. Unacceptable in my opinion, and time for
>>Intel to wake up !!!
>>
>
>
> They have woken up, future CPUs will make the P4 look
> horrible. Essentially AMD forced Intel's hand, they had to
> ramp up P4 before they had next-gen hardware ready to
> counter.
>
Let's hope and pray...
Is that what you are referring to when you say, "the newer 939 chipset"
Alceryes?
--
George Hester
_________________________________
"Alceryes" <replytopost@thankyou.com> wrote in message
news:AfkQe.3186$9i4.641@newsread2.news.atl.earthli nk.net...
>
> "Random Person" <nonexistent2032@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1125240222.758102.309970@o13g2000cwo.googlegr oups.com...
> > Hi guys. At the moment, as we all know, dual core processors are much
> > more expensive than their single core counterparts.
> >
> > My question is whether it is worth getting dual core processors, even
> > IF they were in a similar price range to single cores. For example,
> > take a look at the benchmark results below. Even though the Athlon 64
> > X2 4800+ beats the Athlon 64 4000+ CPU, it only does so by a small
> > margin. Considering the X2 is 4800+ rated and the single core is only
> > 4000+ rated, shouldn't a single core 4800+ beat the X2 4800+ (assuming
> > you could get a single core to that speed by overclocking)
> >
> > http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2005...tml#classic_be
nchmark_results
> >
> > IMVHO, it would only be worth getting a dual core if it was much
> > cheaper. The price/performance ratio of X2 CPUs isn't as good as a
> > single core CPU at the moment.
> >
> > You are, after all, losing CPU cycles in the overhead to maintain
> > parallel processing. Isn't the whole point of parallel processors their
> > lower cost?
> >
>
>
> Is it worth it?...absolutely not!
> These dual core CPU's will really shine when "multi-threaded software"
> (games, apps, etc.) hit it big. As for now, just a big hype with little
> boost in performance.
> Also, remember if you are using the newer 939 chipset you already have a
> dual core capable motherboard ready to upgrade to the X2's in a year when
> their price is right.
> --
>
>
> "I don't cheat to survive. I cheat to LIVE!!"
> - Alceryes
>
>
>
Tell me General. What is the best hardware system to Run LINUX on? Since
LINUX is UNIX based and UNIX was out long before the IA-32 technology from
Intel something tells me Intel is not the best hardware for LINUX.
--
George Hester
_________________________________
"General Schvantzkoph" <schvantzkoph@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.08.28.23.22.54.4433@yahoo.com...
> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 21:14:15 +0000, kony wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 18:25:26 GMT, "BillL"
> > <billc1@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Probably a daft questin but would dual core help when, for example,
you're
> >>running a game and you want to run AV/Firewall SW at the same time.
> >>Currently running a A64 3200+ (2 GB RAM, 256MB GT6800) I generally turn
off
> >>AV SW (and othere apps) if I'm running a game such as HL2 or the FEAR
demo.
> >>Would I *need* to do this with a DC CPU?
> >
> > How much of a performance increase do you see by shutting
> > down and/or disabling these apps?
> >
> > While a higher performance dual-core CPU can help, so can a
> > higher performance single-core CPU. The vast majority of
> > CPU time will be spend on the game so the best performance
> > for the game will come with the fastest *single* core,
> > whether that single core be a single core CPU or one of the
> > cores in a dual core CPU. Your focus should be on the
> > fastest "1st" core possible and then IF you can get a 2nd
> > core involved, so much the better. Ultimately shutting down
> > the AV/FW/etc should speed things up regardless of 1 or 2
> > cores, _but_ is the performance different enough to be
> > significant? I would've thought your current setup could
> > play HL2 with AV and FW running.
>
> In theory a faster uniprocessor is better than a multiprocessor. However
> the problem is that the performance range in a processor family is so
> narrow that you really can't buy a significantly faster processor. The
> 3200+ is a 2GHz processor, the faster uniprocessor member of the A64
> family is the FX 57 which is 2.8GHz which is 1.44x faster then the 3200
> which is enough that you'll notice the difference but just barely. It's
> also 5X the price, $1020 which doesn't make it a very good option. If you
> are running an application that's sensitive to cache size then you'll see
> a bigger jump with the FX57 because it has a 1M cache vs 1/2 on the 3200.
> However the 4000+ and the X2 4400+ also have 1M caches and they are both
> significantly cheaper, the 4000+ is $367 and the 4400+ is $540. In
> multitasking environment the 4400+ is the clear winner, it adds a couple
> of hundred bucks to the system cost but it will deliver nearly twice the
> throughput. In the case of the OP who is just running games the choice is
> less clear. If turning off the anti-virus software really does produce a
> noticeable difference, I'll have to take the OP's word for it I run Linux
> so I don't have any personal knowledge of impact of antivirus
> software, then I'd say there is enough background work going on that he
> really will see a difference with a 4400+. Each core is a little faster
> then his current processor, they run at 2.2GHz and have 1M caches, and the
> second core will certainly be able to suck up all of his background tasks
> so that the system should perform a little better then his current system
> does when he turns off of all of the antivirus software.
>
Are dual core CPUs worth it? 
Linear Mode
