duel processor?

[Leonidas]

on newegg an athlon xp 1.8ghz costs 83 dollars, a p3 1ghz costs 87 (both OEM), both can run in dual configuration... the athlon has 512kb l2 cache, and much higher clock speed/performance... so if you do decide to go multi-processor check them out, ive seen benches showing 2 athlon 2100+ beating dual xeon 2ghz, at half the cost... and as for the performance boost for dual processor, it is not in any games i know of(quake 3 was supposed to support it but no benchmarkers or users have been able to enable it without massive errors arrising)... so truthfully until games come out that support it, or unless you are running a server then stick with single processor.
windows xp pro can run on a 300mhz processor, and shows no lag past a 1ghz processor, so unless you want to have a computer that can maximize and minimize your documents folder faster than anyone else, id say stick with single

 

[Rizinc4]

Leonidas,

As far as I know, the game itself does NOT have to support it. Although the Dual CPU's will not divide the actual game workload, it will devote a single CPU to the game, and a single CPU to System processes. This is compeletely possible if the Operating System supports it.

SMP (Symmetric Multi-Processing) uses a single operating system and shares common memory and disk input/output resources. Both UNIX and Windows NT support SMP. Unlike asymmetrical processing, any idle processor can be assigned any task, and additional CPUs can be added to improve performance and handle increased loads. A variety of specialized operating systems and hardware arrangements are available to support SMP. Specific applications can benefit from SMP if the code allows multithreading.

BTW, can you post some of them bench tests, I would love to see them.

 

[slvrstang]

Dual procs for games is retarded, sure you get 100% of ONE of the CPU's, but who wants 100% of a P3? I'd rather have 95% of a good P4 or AMD. And soon, there will be no "dual processor" motherboards, as most processors will have dual cores effectively being dual processors, as they can do two things at once, although still won't be as effective as one really fast single processor until some software comes out that can utilize both cores.

EDIT: By the way, who wants to run 133FSB or 100FSB on a P3 board that can only use SDRAM?

 

[Leonidas]

Leonidas,

As far as I know, the game itself does NOT have to support it. Although the Dual CPU's will not divide the actual game workload, it will devote a single CPU to the game, and a single CPU to System processes. This is compeletely possible if the Operating System supports it...

BTW, can you post some of them bench tests, I would love to see them.

unless you set the affinities i do believe it will not automatically set one to up top run a game and use the other just for everything else...(you must go through and set all other processes to run on just one processor and the game to just run on the other), and even in doing so you do not gain very much performance...

and as for the benchmarks, here...

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=ampmobo&page=7
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=ampmobo&page=6 (xeon only wins memory benchmarks)

and as for slvrstang, i do agree with you mostly however dual processor mobos will still be around as well as quad mobos and maybe even more, because people now using the correct programs see an even bigger boost from every processor they can put on an operation.

 

[ChaosBlizzard]

unless you set the affinities i do believe it will not automatically set one to up top run a game and use the other just for everything else...(you must go through and set all other processes to run on just one processor and the game to just run on the other), and even in doing so you do not gain very much performance...

and as for the benchmarks, here...

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=ampmobo&page=7
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=ampmobo&page=6 (xeon only wins memory benchmarks)

and as for slvrstang, i do agree with you mostly however dual processor mobos will still be around as well as quad mobos and maybe even more, because people now using the correct programs see an even bigger boost from every processor they can put on an operation.

The operating system sets the affinity's.. It's called HAL. If you notice, when windows is installing.. It will say loading hardware abstract layer. That is what controls the CPU load balance, rather it be for one CPU or many. The only programs that would have to setup the affinity's would be ones that would want to use more than one CPU themselves... That doesn't mean they wont use one, and the OS use the other. Everything is yet again, balanced. If you don't believe me, I can give you a screen shot of my process manager.

Also, Once dual cores come out.. That will not get rid of dual CPU motherboards. Why stick to two threads when you can do 4 threads with the same amount of chips? It will only open up the possibilities of even faster servers/workstations and even super computers.

Also, if you had 95% of a P4 to a game... You would only have 5% left to the system. That isn't really enough. If anything in the system has to wait at all, that is going to slow something down. That something will be your game. The operating system would rather allocate resources to itself than to some 3d application in the foreground. If it doesn't, you won't be running the game very long.

PS- I can also show you were in the system the affinity settings are kept if you like.

Yeah it uses only SDRAM, and is still out performing most high speed chips.. Who want's to use only one CPU that only has one bus, one cache and one FIFO queue to itself??

 

[Nubius]

Yeah it uses only SDRAM, and is still out performing most high speed chips..

If that were the case SDRAM would still be more popular, but there's no way a PC with XYZ can beat a 1gb kit of DC running high performance RAM, perhaps it can beat someone who's using like ValueRAM that's PC2100 and has a bottleneck in their system because they don't have it properly configured, but I honestly don't see how a claim can be made that the SDRAM will out perform most high speed chips.

Rather let me rephrase that.

Which 'high speed' chips exactly are you referring to that it outperform? Is really the question I would like to know. And under what circumstances, do you mean benchmarks or as far as gaming, applications??

 

[TheMajor]

If both CPU's have to share the memory, only one CPU can access at the same time right? A bottleneck.

 

[ChaosBlizzard]

I would post bench marks again.. But you would say they are incorrect. My system is as fast or faster in most bench tests than say a P4 @ 3.4Ghz.

Also, since both the P3's have their own bus.. That kind of helps where it is lacking. They have more than just the ability to handle two threads. They have a separate bus each, and they each have their own cache.

It's not the speed of the ram that makes it popular.. It's the fact DDR is double the data rate. Hence it's name!

Did I say SDRAM will outperform most high speed chips. NO! I said my PENTIUM IIIs can outperform most high speed chips.

If both CPU's have to share the memory, only one CPU can access at the same time right? A bottleneck.

Yeah, and so the system sends the data down to the MCH, and they each take on a thread. Just because it is only one memory call, doesn't mean you can't divide the operations.

A single CPU has bottlenecks too.. How's only being able to do one thread at a time not a bottleneck? It limits performance, much in the same way my RAM does to me.

 

[Nubius]

someone asked you how you could run fast with SDRAM and
your wording made it seem like you said your RAM runs faster than most high speed 'STICKS' --which yes I did misunderstand your wording.

So I understand what you meant,

I've seen your benchmarks and it depends on the applicational use you are using your computer for. I know your computer is fast, but depending on the application that's meant to be run, it's not necessarily going to perform up to standards compared to a newer machine.

Know what I mean?

EDIT:

A single CPU has bottlenecks too...

It makes complete sense, of course if you're only working with one thread it limits your performance, but there isn't a 'bottleneck' in the system as everything is running in accordance to it's standards and everything is running with all the other hardware at it's max capabilities..that doesn't mean there's a bottleneck unless something's running slower than something else in your system.

So you're correct in saying It limits performance only having one thread, but only in comparison to a dual processor setup which most people don't have, beyond that if your system is set up correctly, two CPU's or one, there's no bottleneck, but within your system their is simply on the fact that your two CPU's run faster than your RAM right? Unless they all have the same FSB then I'd assume there would be no bottleneck.

 

[Rizinc4]

Hmm, rather than close the thread, can you two agree to debate instead of argue? This way it is "civilized" and the pros and cons of the topic can be brought out thoroughly.

Edit by Larry:
I've thought about this before
Not sure it will help the "atmosphere" at TF... but it would allow members to learn... which is the major point of TF.
But the negative tension would still be there