Intel Dual Processors

[canuck_fan]

Any Pros And Cons about the Intel Dual processor PC's? The 2.8 GHz and the 3.0 GHz preferably. Are they 64 bit?

[Gee]

Any Pros And Cons about the Intel Dual processor PC's? The 2.8 GHz and the 3.0 GHz preferably. Are they 64 bit?

I am assuming you are talking about Dual Core, instead of Dual Processors.

I would not consider them thru 64 Bit processors, but it will run XP64.

The main difference is EM64T. Which basically allows you to address RAM above 4 Gigs.

Depending on your application, you may or may not benefit from it.

[DaFonz]

Pro - dual core for half the price of AMD
Con -
expensive motherboard
heat issues
ddr2 is expensive

[Silver Bullet]

Hey,

I just built a Pentium D 830 comp for a client last week. It's running great.

SS:

OCZ Powerstream 520W
Antec P180
Pentium D 830 (3Ghz)
Asus P4WD2 Premium WiFi Edition
1GB of OCZ 5400 EB (at 800mhz DDR2)
3 x 200GB Maxtor 200GB in RAID 5

etc

He is extremely happy with the system, he does 3D rendering (Maya 6) and some vidoe editing and has noticed a major difference from his previous system (P4 3Ghz, 1GB ram etc), some times as much as 50% speed improvement, also multi tasking could not be better ...

As for cons, the only thing so far is the stock Intel HS, its makes a huge racket, but that is easily solved with a new HS (Thermaltake Typhoon etc) .. he is personally waiting for the Zalman CNPS9500 as it looks like it should be the best air cooling for awhile.


As far as price goes, DDR2 can be had pretty cheap as long as your not looking for major Oc'ing and mobos are about the same price as a good AMD mobo ($200 ish).

[JustMike]

I would not consider them thru 64 Bit processors, but it will run XP64.

Do you not consider the Athlon64 to be a 64-bit processor either? Why?

The main difference is EM64T. Which basically allows you to address RAM above 4 Gigs.

Uhh, what did you think 64-bit technology was going to bring?

Might I recommend the following document?

http://www.intel.com/technology/64bitextensions/

[pluto]

anyone know of any comparisons between the dual-core Pentium D processors on entry-level servers vs. more expensive DP Xeon solutions?

wondering how they compare doing typical server tasks (sql, etc.)

[contoursvt]

Hi Pluto,

I built a fairly affordable dual 3Ghz xeon system a few months back so I can run some benchmarks for you... if you can find someone with a dual core to do the same, then we can see how it stacks up. I suspect clock for clock, the dual core to be a bit faster (my guess).

Got my CPU's for $369 each and the board for $289 so it was not cheap but at the time, it was cheap for what it was....plus the board does have 2 64bit PCI slots which I'm using one of right now (for my scsi controller).

[Slimfast]

I don't get it. . .how will 64 bit benifit the home user? (besides having 4 gigs of memory)

[GTA_best]

I don't get it. . .how will 64 bit benifit the home user? (besides having 4 gigs of memory)

Try compare using Windows 3.11 on DOS , 16-bits, with Windows 2000 or XP 32-Bits. where, Windows 95 or Windows98 as the 32-bits mode of EM64T


sort of...

BTW, MS web site (or Dell? I forgot) do have some bench mark reference on Exchange and SQL ,etc.

[jm20]

No one mentioned the power draw of these processors. At load it is enormous, similar to its massive heat output. While priced cheaper than the A64 X2's they perform slightly worse at everything (http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2484) . No longer does Intel hold any commanding benchmarks, even in area's where they used to shine :(


Side Note: Now AMD needs to shorten thier processor names. AMD X-two thirty-eight hundred plus is nine sylables

BTW, MS web site (or Dell? I forgot) do have some bench mark reference on Exchange and SQL ,etc.

That is an unreliable source of information, as they market thier own products. I, personally, would not down play my own products regardless of how they performed. You would need independant 3rd parties to verify performance gains/losses for it to hold any merit.

[GTA_best]

No one mentioned the power draw of these processors. At load it is enormous, similar to its massive heat output. While priced cheaper than the A64 X2's they perform slightly worse at everything (http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2484) . No longer does Intel hold any commanding benchmarks, even in area's where they used to shine :(


Side Note: Now AMD needs to shorten thier processor names. AMD X-two thirty-eight hundred plus is nine sylables



That is an unreliable source of information, as they market thier own products. I, personally, would not down play my own products regardless of how they performed. You would need independant 3rd parties to verify performance gains/losses for it to hold any merit.


I guess that they do specify their configurations and what they are comparing to. it might give you an idea how it perform? or am I really wrong?

[Dd_anon]

I guess that they do specify their configurations and what they are comparing to. it might give you an idea how it perform? or am I really wrong?

Your not wrong, but those kind of sources almost always have a bias towards themselves.

[pluto]

While priced cheaper than the A64 X2's they perform slightly worse at everything (http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2484)

yeah, I read that anandtech article, trouble is it's hard to find a rackmount server case & mobo combo for the A64 X2. We mostly use Supermicro and they only do Intel :( Same deal with Dell, IBM servers

Supermicro has a Pentium D compatible board with 4 x 64bit PCI slots
http://www.supermicro.com/products/motherboard/DualCore/E7230/PDSME.cfm

[JustMike]

I don't get it. . .how will 64 bit benifit the home user? (besides having 4 gigs of memory)

Quite simply, it doesn't. And best of luck finding 64-bit drivers for ANYTHING!

[canuck_fan]

64 bit is just for the future...still you could run 34bit aplications on it. Isn't Windows Vista 64 bit?

[JustMike]

64 bit is just for the future...still you could run 34bit aplications on it. Isn't Windows Vista 64 bit?

Yes, for the future to support larger applications and more memory... not quite sure who needs more than 4GB RAM in their home computer but Intel/AMD will convince us that we do.

[eelfliw]

Not easy to compare dual-CPU systems vs dual-core system easily as dual-CPU motherboards vary widely in terms of construction.

Cheaper dual-CPU boards sport 1 data bus to be shared between CPUs while $$$ boards have dual data buses. Pricier boards also have better voltage regulators to ensure CPU is always running at optimal voltage whereas cheaper boards rely on the PSU for voltage regulation.

Because board design vary so widely, be sure to compare optimal dual-CPU boards with optimal dual-core CPUs.

In the end, dual-CPU systems (if properly designed) will be much faster than dual core.

[JustMike]

Cheaper dual-CPU boards sport 1 data bus to be shared between CPUs while $$$ boards have dual data buses.

Can you elaborate? Where do I find such description on a spec sheet? I am looking at an Intel Xeon board, for example, and it doesn't mention anything about single/dual data busses.

Since main memory is shared on an SMP board, how is it possible to have dual data busses?

In the end, dual-CPU systems (if properly designed) will be much faster than dual core.

It's hard to compare as well since the Xeon's typically have larger caches and there's no such thing as a dual Pentium 4 board.

[elty]

why would you want to have a INTEL dual core? the X2 3800+ should arrive in Canada soon.

AMD CPU has better 64 bit architecture. EMT64 is a poor copy and I dont think it has any real 64 bit instructions.

Intel dual core is simply mesh 2 cores together and link them with an external FSB, where AMD is actually redesign and is more efficient. AMD scales better than Intel, 10 out of 15 cases.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2484&p=4

Intel consumes 100 watt more than a AMD system. More power = more heat = less stables = shorter life
http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2005q3/athlon64-x2-3800/index.x?pg=13

X2 3800 is faster than D 830 in 30 out of 31 benchmark. This includes from general use to gaming to video encoding. This means the X3800+ will wipes out the D 820, completely.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2484&p=5

Intel platform is LESS stable.
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050603/stresstest-10.html

Serious, while the 820 is cheaper by $160, the price advantage is eaten by half when you have to pay $more for motherboard, memory as well as a better PSU. Not to mention you are going to consume more electricty. Consider the poor earth!

If you can afford a dual core system, why cant you spend 100 more bucks and you get something much better?

[JustMike]

AMD CPU has better 64 bit architecture. EMT64 is a poor copy and I dont think it has any real 64 bit instructions.

Do you have any references to back that up? I was under the impression that EMT64 is a complete copy of the x86-64 extensions that AMD introduced.

Still, being an AMD fan, I'd probably go that way as well...

[luthair]

Do you have any references to back that up? I was under the impression that EMT64 is a complete copy of the x86-64 extensions that AMD introduced.

Still, being an AMD fan, I'd probably go that way as well...

I don't know if its been rectified but at one point EMT64 missed an instruction in AMD64 (apparently they used an early revision of the spec).

[pluto]

It's hard to compare as well since the Xeon's typically have larger caches and there's no such thing as a dual Pentium 4 board.

not necessarily...

Intel Pentium D 830 3.0GHZ S775 2X1MB 800 EM64T DUALCORE ($420 retail)

Intel Xeon 3.2Ghz 800MHz S604 L2 1 MB Box ($450 retail - each)

the Dual Core chip has 2 x 1MB and each Xeon has 1MB so total is the same - sure you can get the Xeon with 2MB for a lot more $$

if one were comparing the cheaper single data-bus Xeon DP boards to a Dual-Core based system I would imagine the benchmark would be pretty darn close


elty, I appreciate that the Athlon X2 may be a superior product but my concern is whether or not there will be reliable server grade chipset(s) and motherboard products available ala Dell, IBM or Supermicro, which are only available for Intel at this time.

[JustMike]

not necessarily...

Intel Pentium D 830 3.0GHZ S775 2X1MB 800 EM64T DUALCORE ($420 retail)

Intel Xeon 3.2Ghz 800MHz S604 L2 1 MB Box ($450 retail - each)

the Dual Core chip has 2 x 1MB and each Xeon has 1MB so total is the same - sure you can get the Xeon with 2MB for a lot more $$


Ok, but the Xeon is faster to start with... still an unfair comparison.

if one were comparing the cheaper single data-bus Xeon DP boards to a Dual-Core based system I would imagine the benchmark would be pretty darn close

What is this "single data-bus" that is referred to? Where can I get more info?

[JustMike]

Here's a bit more info about the 64-bit extensions (linked from AMD's site, BTW):

http://www.devx.com/amd/Article/16101

[pluto]

Ok, but the Xeon is faster to start with... still an unfair comparison.

OK, I didn't mean to compare two different clock speed chips but here you go:
Intel Pentium D 840 3.2GHz S775 800MHz 2X1MB EM64T XD DUAL CORE $690 retail (cheaper than $450 x 2)

Intel Xeon 3.0GHz 800MHz Socket604 L2 1 MB retail $395
so for $20 more you are getting two cores and double the cache on a single chip

I would assume the motherboards are cheaper too, but I haven't checked this yet.



What is this "single data-bus" that is referred to? Where can I get more info?

I don't know, I was just referring to the post by eelfliw who basically said dual-cpu boards are not all created equal. I think it is reasonable to assume that a well designed Dual-Core Pentium capable board could outperform a 'lesser' dual CPU board, but probably not the better ones. But I'd still like to find some benchmarks on this.

Obviously Intel isn't pushing the Dual-Core Pentium as a server product as it would eat into their margins for the Xeon for those that don't need true dual-Xeon performance. I'd rather sink more money into a good RAID controller than put more into CPU/Motherboard if 'similar' results can be acheived for much less $$

[elty]

not necessarily...

Intel Pentium D 830 3.0GHZ S775 2X1MB 800 EM64T DUALCORE ($420 retail)

Intel Xeon 3.2Ghz 800MHz S604 L2 1 MB Box ($450 retail - each)

the Dual Core chip has 2 x 1MB and each Xeon has 1MB so total is the same - sure you can get the Xeon with 2MB for a lot more $$

if one were comparing the cheaper single data-bus Xeon DP boards to a Dual-Core based system I would imagine the benchmark would be pretty darn close


elty, I appreciate that the Athlon X2 may be a superior product but my concern is whether or not there will be reliable server grade chipset(s) and motherboard products available ala Dell, IBM or Supermicro, which are only available for Intel at this time.

Why you suddenly talk about server when the OP is talking about dual core P4? There is always Sun and HP for Opteron server if you like. I think systemworks has some mobo for Opteron too.

But if you are looking for server grade dual core, then you can only go for AMD Opteron. Dual core Xeon simply does not exists.

[JustMike]

I don't know, I was just referring to the post by eelfliw who basically said dual-cpu boards are not all created equal. I think it is reasonable to assume that a well designed Dual-Core Pentium capable board could outperform a 'lesser' dual CPU board, but probably not the better ones. But I'd still like to find some benchmarks on this.

I'd like to as well.

Obviously Intel isn't pushing the Dual-Core Pentium as a server product as it would eat into their margins for the Xeon for those that don't need true dual-Xeon performance.

Dual core Pentiums have already found their way into entry-level servers (see Dell). Xeons will continue to be "enterprise" class with larger caches, I guess.

I'd rather sink more money into a good RAID controller than put more into CPU/Motherboard if 'similar' results can be acheived for much less $$

This is true. A system is only as fast as it's weakest link and that usually is disk I/O.

With that said, better disk I/O doesn't help if you have CPU-bound tasks (like rendering, transcoding, etc), though.

[ProfessorChaos]

OK, I didn't mean to compare two different clock speed chips but here you go:
Intel Pentium D 840 3.2GHz S775 800MHz 2X1MB EM64T XD DUAL CORE $690 retail (cheaper than $450 x 2)

Intel Xeon 3.0GHz 800MHz Socket604 L2 1 MB retail $395
so for $20 more you are getting two cores and double the cache on a single chip

I would assume the motherboards are cheaper too, but I haven't checked this yet.

the comparision isn't fair because in the OP's uses...they won't get nearly double the performance from 2 cores than a single core in single-threaded apps...

[JustMike]

The original poster didn't even mention his/her uses...

Please forget the idea that most Windows apps are single-threaded. It is utterly and completely false!

Running two single-threaded apps on a dual CPU machine will be theoretically twice as fast compared to running two single-threaded apps on a single CPU machine.

Why does everybody keep bringing up multithreading and yet few people actually know and understand what it means?

[contoursvt]

One thing to consider...at least for intel's dual core implementation. Two HOT HOT cores under one die and heatsink. I dont think thats a great idea. I've heard some horror stories. WIth the dual Xeon, its much easier to cool. The box I set up was very reasonably priced and performs very well.

Motherboard: ASUS NCCH-DL - intel 875 based dual xeon with 64bit PCI slots $289

CPU(s): 2x Intel Xeon 3.0 800FSB 1meg cache - $369 each


So it ends up costing considerably more than a dual core intel solution but if your intention is to ever run SCSI, then the dual cpu is the better way to go because you can get 64bit PCI slots. Also, check out the stock intel xeon coolers. Tell me these suckers wont keep things cool ;) Heck I'm sure each of these are easily worth $60
http://www.gamepc.com/images/labs/rev-nctd-mountingLG.jpg

[pluto]

Why you suddenly talk about server when the OP is talking about dual core P4? There is always Sun and HP for Opteron server if you like. I think systemworks has some mobo for Opteron too.

But if you are looking for server grade dual core, then you can only go for AMD Opteron. Dual core Xeon simply does not exists.

I know there is no Dual core Xeon, what I am saying is for an entry level server the Pentium D (aka Dual Core Pentium 4) might be a good alternative to two single core Xeon's.

Where can I find info on the Systemworks motherboard products? google search only resulted in info on the Symantec product :/ Perhaps you meant Serverworks which afaik only produces server chipsets


JustMike, check out this page http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/cpu/intel-cmp-vs-smp.html


also, something I haden't taken into consideration, Xeons support HyperThreading so a dual procesor Xeon system would have that edge over the Pentium D - I guess that is why the Pentium Extreme Edition Dual Core is so much more money (it enables HT)


performance of the dual core Pentium XE and two Xeon Nocona processors with the same core clocks is approximately identical.

[pluto]

the dual cpu is the better way to go because you can get 64bit PCI slots. Also, check out the stock intel xeon coolers.

You can get 64 bit PCI slots on the Pentium D / P XE platform with an Intel
E7230 chipset based board (see http://www.supermicro.com/products/motherboard/DualCore)

I haven't seen the the coolers for a dual core but I'd imagine they are pretty substantial and effective or else Intel would be RMA'ing chips left right and centre

[JustMike]

JustMike, check out this page http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/cpu/intel-cmp-vs-smp.html

And from this, the conclusion says enough to satisfy my curiousity:

"The overall bottom line is naturally determined, it could have been forecast even before the tests: performance of the dual core Pentium XE and two Xeon Nocona processors with the same core clocks is approximately identical."


also, something I haden't taken into consideration, Xeons support HyperThreading so a dual procesor Xeon system would have that edge over the Pentium D - I guess that is why the Pentium Extreme Edition Dual Core is so much more money (it enables HT)

HyperThreading is nothing more than simulating dual CPUs, so obviously a real dual CPU/core configuration is going to be better. A combination of both would obviously be optimal.

[contoursvt]

Wow I didnt know there were any dual core boards with 64bit PCI. Good to see something out there. In that case, it could be a great entry level server or high end workstation :)

I'm still a fan of SCSI over SATA (even 10K raptors) because I've used both and under heavy multitasking, I can feel a difference. The Raptor benchmarks higher than the older Atlas 10K III drive but I find the system with the Atlas does not bog down under heavy use as much. Its funny because its also got the lesser processor (P4 3.0C) vs new P4 3.4Ghz. Both have 1gig RAM.

[mortimusmaximus]

The real benefits of dual core will come when the applications and games are written for them.
As for intel vs amd.Amd has the biggest adantage.Nearly every 939 board will accept the X2 processor.The intel will require a new mobo.This is a pretty big hit for the early adopters of the 925 chipset boards.The thermal issues are a real probelm until the btx standard is fullt implemented.Amd definitely is the way to go.In a recent issue of Max Pc the amd beat the intel dual core overall.

[JustMike]

The real benefits of dual core will come when the applications and games are written for them.

Applications and games are currently multithreaded and have been for YEARS. Dual core CPUs are utilized now!

Where does this myth come from that there aren't any multithreaded apps on Windows? It's totally false.

[elty]

Applications and games are currently multithreaded and have been for YEARS. Dual core CPUs are utilized now!

Where does this myth come from that there aren't any multithreaded apps on Windows? It's totally false.

What are you talking about? How many games on the market is multi trheaded for YEARS? Multi threaded applciation only get some populance in recent years, but only those professional software has it.

[JustMike]

Windows itself is multithreaded and as I stated before, even running multiple single threaded apps on a dual core/CPU machine will benefit is faster than a single core/CPU.

Any non-insignificant Windows app is multithreaded. Internet Explorer is multithreaded. Outlook is multithreaded. Word is multithreaded. Need I go on?

Where does this myth come from that only "professional apps" are multithreaded? What a joke...

[JustMike]

In the early days of Windows 95, it was commonplace that apps ported from Windows 3.x (that was not multithreaded nor pre-emptively multitasking) wouldn't be multithreaded.

We've been on a fully multhreaded, multitasking platform for more than 10 years now.

I've been a professional Windows developer since the Windows 3.x days and when given the ability to use threads in the software I've developed, I've done so. I imagine that most developers would do the same.

[mortimusmaximus]

Applications and games are currently multithreaded and have been for YEARS. Dual core CPUs are utilized now!

Where does this myth come from that there aren't any multithreaded apps on Windows? It's totally false.

If games are mutithread, why don`t they show benchmark improvements on dual core systems?I think maybe that there is a difference between multi thread and dual core ready or written for dual core.Why would any of the current games be written for dual processor rigs when the vast majority of gamers have single core rigs.

[eelfliw]

Can you elaborate? Where do I find such description on a spec sheet? I am looking at an Intel Xeon board, for example, and it doesn't mention anything about single/dual data busses.

Since main memory is shared on an SMP board, how is it possible to have dual data busses?

It's hard to compare as well since the Xeon's typically have larger caches and there's no such thing as a dual Pentium 4 board.
There are lots of servers with dual data busses. Check out Dell, IBM, or HP's web sites. The HP ML570 (http://h18004.www1.hp.com/products/servers/proliantml570/index.html) for example, sports dual independent 667MHz front side busses.

Think of RAM as a big pool of data with its own memory controller managing RAM refreshes and access. And data busses are just pipes that join the CPU to the pool. In dual CPU systems, if both CPU needs data at the same time, systems with dual data busses can access data simultaneously (as long as it's not the same location) whereas systems with single data bus must access RAM sequentially because the data bus can only be used by 1 CPU at a time.

Using the same analogy, dual core CPUs will be slower than dual CPUs. This is because dual core CPUs, again, must share the address & data bus between 2 processing units. In the early days of Pentium, Intel used a "dual-pipeline" technology to accelerate CPUs. The dual-core is an extension of that technology.

To benchmark something like this, applications must be very data intensive. Running Photoshop or games to test this simply won't do.

[JustMike]

If games are mutithread, why don`t they show benchmark improvements on dual core systems?I think maybe that there is a difference between multi thread and dual core ready or written for dual core.Why would any of the current games be written for dual processor rigs when the vast majority of gamers have single core rigs.

No, I'm sorry, but this is totally incorrect. Multithreaded is multithreaded. Developers do not write software that is "dual core ready". Developers write software that is multithreaded that will run better/faster/more efficiently on dual core/CPU machines.

Having absolutely no interest at all in gaming, I cannot explain why they don't show benchmark improvements on dual core machines. Perhaps the bottleneck is with video? Perhaps games cannot be parallelized in such a way that a large number of threads can be utilized.

[JustMike]

There are lots of servers with dual data busses. Check out Dell, IBM, or HP's web sites. The HP ML570 (http://h18004.www1.hp.com/products/servers/proliantml570/index.html) for example, sports dual independent 667MHz front side busses.

Thanks for the link and info.

I understand how it would work if there were dual data busses, however I had never seen this in a spec sheet. Even looking at Intel's website, I do not see this terminology used. I am sure they, if anybody, have a dual bus memory controller.

To benchmark something like this, applications must be very data intensive. Running Photoshop or games to test this simply won't do.

Agreed. It's something that wouldn't affect the average desktop user (which, I think, is what this thread was originally about)

[mortimusmaximus]

Just Mike,,you better check the reviews and tests before you start correcting me..check these articles. :confused:
http://www.tomshardware.com/business/20050708/
http://compreviews.about.com/od/cpus/a/dualcore.htm
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=21930

[JustMike]

Your links prove that all games aren't fully multithreaded. I retract that statement about games being multithreaded. I am quite surprised to read that games aren't as optimized as they should be in this regard.

[JeiJei]

I doubt most apps are multi-threaded either...

The few apps that are written to support multi-thread are mostly professional apps like Photoshop, Premier, Maya... etc. And some of them (specially server applications) even ask for a premium for multi-CPU/Thread support. You might want to double check on that mikey.

Heck... even Windows itself isn't 100% multi-threaded. XP Home doesn't even have support for multiple logical units.

[JustMike]

Ok, I give up. I'm done arguing...

Believe what you want, but I'm not a high school student talking out my ass.

I develop Windows software and device drivers for a living. I've done so professionally for 12 years. The driver I've worked on most recently is multithreaded and has been multithreaded since was originally ported to Windows 95. It's 'helper' service is multithreaded. The other support apps/DLLs in the product are written to be reentrant because they're called from threads in the system.

[JustMike]

Heck... even Windows itself isn't 100% multi-threaded. XP Home doesn't even have support for multiple logical units.

You're just showing how ignorant you are. Threads have just as much place on a single CPU than they do on a SMP system.

How do you discuss something you know nothing about?

[contoursvt]

Hi JustMike, I think you gotta give up the argument because nobody here wants to believe what a huge difference multiple CPUs can make. Lets all pretend that nothing current can make use of it so we dont feel that our systems are getting old or something......

I just switched from a single CPU 3.0C P4 to a dual 3.0 Nocona xeon system. I cant believe the insane multitasking performance increase I got. !!

Here is a screenshot of me having some basic apps open like outlook, MSN, a flash website (2advanced.com), shrinkdvd (doing an analysis), burning a DVD and playing doom3 in a window at 1024x768 on high detail. Check out the CPU usage. Also I will add that even though the game is not multithreaded, since the system is, I can do tons of things in the background and the game still runs smooth as glass.

http://powerthings.com/pics/stresstest.jpg

or how about ripping two DVDs to my HD while playing Doom3?

http://powerthings.com/pics/stresstest2.jpg


I went back to my 3.0C and I swear it felt broken!!! Not because its slow, but because I now use the current system differently. I tend to do way more things at once which bring the previous system to its knees now. I would never in a million years go to a single CPU system now.....

[jm20]

Heck... even Windows itself isn't 100% multi-threaded. XP Home doesn't even have support for multiple logical units.

Right click taskbar - > task manager - > processes tab -> menu view -> select columns -> thread count -> review the processes tab and scroll as needed.

Windows IS multi-threaded.

[DaFonz]

I just switched from a single CPU 3.0C P4 to a dual 3.0 Nocona xeon system. I cant believe the insane multitasking performance increase I got. !!
.

No kidding. I went opteron a couple months back (before dual core) and I'm never going back to single core. I was pretty happy with HT before..but real multiple procs takes the cake

[mortimusmaximus]

I am not a high schooll student talking out my ass..nasty visual there.

I never said that multitasking would not improve.I have read the reviews and know that you can multitask with dvd burning or ripping and play a game at the same time.
What I did say is that playing games has not improved,all the reviews point out that for most games a sigle faster or same speed processor will play the game better.it seems that most games were not written to be dual core or multi processor aware.The old quake 3 I believ is one of the few exceptions.Even windows is not very intelligent when it comes to distributing workload to a dual core intel with hyperthreading on.Until now very few users had a dual processor system.Heck windows didn`t always work with hyperthreading on a single core cpu that well.
The software ,games and operating sytem must catch up with the hardware now.Dual core will give us increases in performance for games,they just need to be written to take advantage of that power.

[mortimusmaximus]

Hi JustMike, I think you gotta give up the argument because nobody here wants to believe what a huge difference multiple CPUs can make. Lets all pretend that nothing current can make use of it so we dont feel that our systems are getting old or something......

I just switched from a single CPU 3.0C P4 to a dual 3.0 Nocona xeon system. I cant believe the insane multitasking performance increase I got. !!

Here is a screenshot of me having some basic apps open like outlook, MSN, a flash website (2advanced.com), shrinkdvd (doing an analysis), burning a DVD and playing doom3 in a window at 1024x768 on high detail. Check out the CPU usage. Also I will add that even though the game is not multithreaded, since the system is, I can do tons of things in the background and the game still runs smooth as glass.

http://powerthings.com/pics/stresstest.jpg

or how about ripping two DVDs to my HD while playing Doom3?

http://powerthings.com/pics/stresstest2.jpg


I went back to my 3.0C and I swear it felt broken!!! Not because its slow, but because I now use the current system differently. I tend to do way more things at once which bring the previous system to its knees now. I would never in a million years go to a single CPU system now.....


Just curious,are you ripping/burning your dvd on a seperate harddrive from the one doom is running on.I ask because I use 3 hard drives in my system and it really helps when multitasking.I have gone to lan partys and played ut04 while downloading tons of mp3`s with no dropped frames.

[contoursvt]

I do have three seperate hard drives as well. My OS, apps and swap are on my C:, my games are on my D: and E: is a temp area for burning or images or whatever. I've always used multiple drives even in my P4 3.0C system (same drives actually) and I was not able to do what I'm doing now. Granted Doom3 is a very heavy game all on its own...

[contoursvt]

Hi Mortimus, I think though that people here are talking about improvements with dual core and dual cpu systems, not really targetting games. Games have rarely been multiCPU aware but thats fine, on a dual core system, all that means is that you can do something else while playing games and your system will not suffer. I personally took a slight performance hit in my games because my memory bandwidth on this dual xeon system is lower than my P4C. (5000 sandra score vs 4100) but I would gladly take that hit for all the benfits elsewhere.

[luthair]

Ok, I give up. I'm done arguing...

Believe what you want, but I'm not a high school student talking out my ass.

I develop Windows software and device drivers for a living. I've done so professionally for 12 years. The driver I've worked on most recently is multithreaded and has been multithreaded since was originally ported to Windows 95. It's 'helper' service is multithreaded. The other support apps/DLLs in the product are written to be reentrant because they're called from threads in the system.

Most desktop programs at best use additional threads for saving or GUIs, most applications don't lend themselves to parallelism.

[JeiJei]

Right click taskbar - > task manager - > processes tab -> menu view -> select columns -> thread count -> review the processes tab and scroll as needed.

Windows IS multi-threaded.

mh... u might want to check how a real "multi-thread" works in computer before saying that.

Basically speaking, windows holds one major thread and process all the tasks it needs to run in turn. While a real multi threading is having several threads running simultaneously.

I am too lazy to google now. But just search for "linux" and "multi threading" and it should pop up some articles.

[canuck_fan]

thanks for the help everyone.