Hardware AMD Phenom and Quad Core Opteron

That's why Phenom is directed at workstation and ultra enthusiast. Sup Com is highly threaded and is still CPU limited with GTXs on full pelt at high res. There will be need for it at some point. Yet again, it's NOT about using all your resources to the fullest all the time, it's about having stuff spare just in case you need it.

Surely you want stuff out in preparation for the future? You can't say that four cores won't be necessary in the future? I think you need to exist on a dual core system for a while until you realise what the extra power at your disposal can afford.

We generally run multiple stuff at once, it's not all about multithreading.

 

as most multicore things are primarily aimed at the server market first, its still incredibly useful

In a server environment, a lot of what you do is maltreated, so it doesn't matter how many cores, because if you have your accounts package pumping out payslips - able to do 1 payslip per core, there is a direct increase in speed with each core

OK so the home user may not see a benefit - yet, but personally, i would like quad core
I can keep all windows processes on core 1, i can put media center on core 2 and i can put games / F@h on cores 3 & 4

ATM there isn't a big incentive to go multi-core because applications aren't coded that way yet, and some applications don't even benefit from it

 

It's not all about multithreading though! It's about doing more, simultaneously.

EDIT: Like you say: folding, windows, etc (although you'd probably use your GPU to fold as it's far faster).

If you do two things and those two things are multithreaded you'd benefit from four cores. If you do three things and one of those is multithreaded you'd again benefit from three cores.

How many people surf the web/download/listen to music/watch a video/virus scan or any number of stuff at once? I sure as hell do, and I can't live without at least two CPUs.

 

I have noticed the difference with my Q6600 over my mums E6400, especially when multi-tasking. I was ripping a dvd with dvdshrink, doing a spybot scan, watching tv and on msn all at the same time with no drop in performance, in task manager I could see the different cores loading up, was quite cool actually, and no way near maxed, BUT i know i can do it, and more

 

i agree with you 100%, having dual core is most definitely a boost, however, Windows XP and dual core is pathetic, swapping processes evenly across the cores, completely wasting time doing so (well I'm assuming this severely adversely affects performance, maybe with an AMD proc with shared cache it doesn't matter as the nature of "multiprogramming" means programs are swapped in and out of the CPU's registers thousands of times a second)

Personally i still only run a virus scan at night or something though, because your going to start thrashing your HDD if your trying to do things and scan at the same time (as its going to be very IO intensive)

 

That's fair enough, as I said, I was looking for clarification on the issue as much as anything else.

I knew that multi-core is useful for server environments etc, I just think there's a lot of misplaced hype in the gaming-hardware market, where a lot of gamers think they need a quad-core, or that they'll see immediate in-game benefits with one, whereas I don't think the truth is quite as simple as that.

I think Multi-core is a good thing, don't get me wrong, but it'd be nice if the developers started to make better use of it in games. Until then, the benefits of multi-core extolled by AMD and Intel just seem a bit misleading to the gaming-enthusiast market.

I think the jump from an A64 3500+ @ 2.4 to a C2D E6600 is going to be too significant in terms of sheer performance for me to determine how much of that increase is coming from the newer technology and how much is coming from the dual-core advantage.
I'll trust in your greater wisdom and believe that there's a good portion of it coming from having a 2nd core.

 

My comment had nothing to do with the other benefits of AM2+ over AM2. I was merely answering the general query of AM2+ vs AM2 in performance terms.
I myself have an AM2 mobo and will almost certainly be purchasing a Phenom X4 so long as MSI update the bios for it.
I am well aware of the split power planes and increased I/O bandwidth. Just that increased I/O bandwidth will, like i said, probably have <5% performance hit on single socket systems. Which is more than acceptable for me until either i upgrade to an AM2+ mobo.
I am still wondering if the AM3 cpus will have a dual DDR2/DDR3 memory controller so that they will drop in to AM2+ mobos for a similar upgrade path to what i am planning now. This would be brilliant for the incremental upgrade!

 

OK, I was just highlighting that it's more than performance though in addition to your post

AM3 will be DDR3 only from what I gather, just like AM2 over 939.

 

dual core is definitely good, being able to put your game onto 1 dedicated core, with no other things interrupting it

But yes, ATM more then that seems a little wasted (unless you run a MCE pc or other things in the background)

However, its a bit of a chicken/egg scenario, if people don't go multi-core games wont, and if games don't people wont

But as supreme command proves, multi-core is here, and valve are working on source to get that multicore, and many more new games are multicore as well

 

Yeah that is what i had been hearing too from various sites, but nothing official so i was still hoping
I guess it would be pretty silly to add that many transistors and complexity to the memory controller for such a small number of people. It would probably decrease performance some what as well, maybe slightly higher latencies.

 

Just skimmed the article for now but I plan on going back and reading this. Everytime something like this comes out, it just reminds me of just how outdated my current PC is. Hell, I've not managed to upgrade to a 64bit CPU let alone a dual core CPU and now quad core are on the way out in the near distant future. I haven't been able to afford new hardware in years so I just kind of quit being on top of current technology completely when it comes to PCs. From what I skimmed of it though, it seems like good stuff and hopefully it'll knock the prices of a good dual core system down enough for me to be able to pick one up.

Hell, the new workstation we got at work a week ago is faster then my home PC by a marginal sum. That's pretty fricken sad.

 

I'm loving this, actually. The price on Opteron 285s is dropping fast, and by the time I'm processor limited on a pair of those, I'll probably be ready to go to a pair of quads. It's so nice to have an upgrade path again! Thank you AMD on behalf of myself and all the other fanboys

 

I know that when AMD finaly sells their quad core processor it will beat the Intel one, but will Intel have an octo core processor by then is AMD waiting to long to be able to catch up to Intel Intel's quad core is two separate cores and AMD's quad core is a single unit, that is why it will work better. I think Intel could make a single unit quad core now and it might be able to surpass AMD's unit. AMD needs to get its act together and build something that is way ahead of Intel, then they will have control of the market