Does anyone have any experience with the new wave of dual and quad core CPU’s that are coming out?
I was thinking of upgrading my Athlon 64 to an Anthlon 64x2, but the most I could do is the same speed, FSB, L1/L2 Cache sizes and everything it just has 2 cores…How much of a performance incease would there be?
pm fshocars… even if I told you what to do Im going to be wrong…
If I only wanted his input I’d call him…someone else has to know SOMETHING about them!
nope
true
^^ you just multiquoted the entire thread? whats the point?
In a sense dual core is like twin turbo…it allows for some of the load to be off’d onto another processor thus putting less stress on the other and allowing for better efficiency. You’ll notice better performance with multimedia(but your already using AMD FTW) and high end tasks. Back when the x2’s came out when i worked with best buy i ran a test on a 3400 x2 and a amd64 3400 with a program known as terragen(it renders 3d environments) the x2 rendered the same size image in 25 seconds LESS than the amd64
I ran dual quads on a 72 Nova once.
Terragen isn’t one I would be conerned with, it isn’t the best quality in the world.
But anywho, so more then just multitasking would show a benefit then?
I have done some 3D rendering with Cinema 4D but half the time it froze and the other half it took 12 hours to do the whole scene in a good res.
3D rendering, gaming, multitasking…so pretty much all around it would benefit huh?
Just throwing another thing out there, I’ve also heard a couple systems running multiple video cards…I didn’t know if that was for the benefit of the speed/memory of having 2, of for dual monitor support as some video cards don’t do that alone. Thanks for the info though.
:bowrofl:
I’ve had the same crashing problem with a few rendering programs before also…and upon upgrading the processor the problem stopped. But if your going dual core you’ll notice all of your media centric tasks will speed up. 3d rendering programs use A LOT of processing so having that dual core will provide much better throughput and having a half decent graphics cards wouldn’t hurt either that way you can actually view what you render afterwards
well if my input was wanted, i suppose i woudl of been asked… BUT… if your application isn’t multi-threaded then teh dual core will not help at all… process is dumped to the cpu but not spread across to the vcpu if not intended to… sometimes causing MORE latency than taht of a single physical proc.
keep in mind that, unlike what xlogic said, a dual core is NOT like a twin turbo… a twin turbo would be like haveing DUAL cpu’s… not a dual core… the physical CPU is still at the limitation of the bus speed… so don’t cheap out on a 533fsb just to afford a dual core, because you will be bottlenecking the benefits of having a dual core…
i have a dual core 1066fsb machine and it’s baller… burning programs and video editing program do not take advantage of the vcpu as much as the l2 cache and FSB of the physical proc itself.
also, a dual PCIx video setup is used for the same theory… two cards spread across two busses to allow for more physical throughput… the amount of RAM on a video card is not the end-all solution to speed and processing, not that anyone said it was, but if you hit up the geek squad they will surely tell you that…
but in the end, workstations are garbage and i could care less…
^^^ truth.
dual-cores shine, for me, when consolidating servers via virtualization. vmware is, I believe, one of those programs that can be hyper-threaded. Either way I can run 2 virtual boxes and a host on one machine and I experience zero latency. Yes, I do run a “production development server environement” off of my dual core workstation. I’m insane, but it works and is cheap.
Sorry, this didn’t help but to show that my equipment is ballah, I’m a shitty sys. admin, and I work with hot asians.
I run a new dual core e6400. It runs a whole lot faster than ant p4 I have ever had and runs a lot cooler also.
and yea, amd’s suck balls compared to intel.
Are you talking aout SLI video cards? My brother got an sli setup with 2 7600gt video cards. He could run FEAR at 1024/768 at the minimum quality settings and now that he has sli, he can run it with everything turned up to full and it doesn’t lag at all. I wish I would have got an sli ready mobo.
If I were building a machine to efficiently do Graphical Design work, wanted to make money off the enterprise and “money’s relatively no object because it’s a businees expense”…
1x
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813131593
1x
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103771
4x
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16820231121
2x
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814133162
So from what I gather here it’s not entirely worth it unless I mostly do stuff like graphic design, movie editing and a lot of multitasking.
If the price is there I’ll probably still do it, but thanks for the info anyways.
Any other opinions are welcome…besides whoever said intel was better then AMD.
AMD>Intel
jon,
please tell me how you are asking for informatoin about chips then make a statement that one is better than the other?
trust me … intel > amd
here is a benchmark from a bunch of PC gaming dorks… looks like intel > amd
Intel did it right with the c2d.