I'll assume you're arguing the second half of that sentence you quoted from me, as I'm sure you know that AMD doesn't make the nforce chipset, NVidia does. Either way that quote is taken out of context. I said that 3rd party chipsets have not always been satisfactory, which is absolutely true. I then went on to say that the quality of 3rd party chipsets for AMD has improved tremendously as of late, specifically mentioning the nforce chipset. what is your point? @riluve: I don't want to argue about percentages of people on these boards who are in the market for a dual proc. motherboard. My point was that for the vast majority of people here, a dually setup is either not in the budget or not needed and therefore not considered. The cost increase is tremendous. The mobos are typically 200-300 dollars, you need to buy two opeterons, so thats another 200-300 dollars a piece. Also, don't forget that dually boards are targeted for server/workstation market and use expensive registered memory. so then you need to buy registered dimms for both processors. This is not practical or advantageous for gaming/surfing/usual stuff we do. Not to mention that it doesn't offer any performance advantage over a single processor setup. If it does and you can show me some benchmarks, I'll retract that statement, print this thread out up to this post, and eat it.
Ill use logic instead Windows XP supports multiple CPUs. As such, it will alloccate loads to each CPU depending on the activities currently being used. While the CPU will only typically handle one application/1 CPU, some programs like AutoCad (which many people do at home as a hobby), 3D studio Max and Maya are all Multi CPU using applications. Otherwise, using multiple CPUs will allow you to run more programs simultaneously without taking up large amounts of CPU time. I dont need benchmarks to prove this; its common sense. While Dual CPUs are out of the price range for most people, those who can afford it enjoy it because the power offered by them is tremendous-even for every day apps, because of the extra CPU time. I beleive its time for some serious paper eating
sigh - well you shouldn't extend yourself on physical challenges - I won't hold you to your silliness. -registered memory is only required on Opterons. I have a dual xeon system without registered memory. -your figures prove my point about cost - a dual systems is only about $400 USD more than a single system. And you know people here have spent that much on a case. -as for benchmarks, maybe I will have time next weekend. You prefer timed real-world events or formal benchmarks? I have to say from my experience there is a noticeable difference, but I haven't yet delimited it. For you though, I will go through the paces. I ‘ll do it fair – bench mark a system, then pull a CPU out and do the exact same routine. I guess though you’ll have to accept my veracity. I mean, I have already admitted I have a bunch of Via chipsets in my systems, so I don’t have much else to hide. (inside joke)
I don't think my argument is silly. Most people who build computers have a budget. Their goal is to maximize performance within that budget. Sinking money into a dual processor setup with their expensive mobos and registered dimms (most dual rigs I've seen use registered memory) is unwise when the money is better spent getting the most out of a single processor setup. Show me frame rates on doom 3 or unreal being better on multiple processor systems and i'll consider retracting. The thing is that you can't, which you even admitted. The noticeable performance advantage of a home user going to a multi processor setup is totally subjective. It "feels" faster people say. But there is no evidence to back it up. Will it load your games faster? No. Will it open documents faster? No. Will it multitask faster? Probably, but performance increases have not been scientifically measured as far as I have seen. And if you want to increase multitasking performance, you're better off buying more RAM anyway. I totally disagree on the 400 dollar figure. But for the sake of argument, that 400 dollars is better spent getting more out of your single cpu system than going for a dually rig EDIT: This is SO off topic btw... EDIT of my EDIT: What I'm getting at is that this is a good discussion, but maybe we should take it somewhere else
Your word is now better than Mother Theresa's I don't think that's a good test though. Dual mobos are made to run dual processors. I would have to imagine that there are some optimizations there that would hinder the machine while running a single proc? Also, what happens when you bench a single 3.0ghz xeon against a single 3.0ghz P4? I would think that the p4 would be faster in the desktop/gaming apps we are talking about. That is what I would rather see. I think it'd be better to bench similarly priced systems in single and dual format. Remember that your goal is to show that a dual processor setup has real world performance advantages to the average desktop user. So dont be running Nastran on a dually and calling it the champ. I would guess that the majority of members on these forums are in high school or college. As such, the "buy in" (meaning the minimum price required to build a dually rig) is already out of their budget. So you'll have to show that there are TANGIBLE benefits to paying a premium for a dually setup. Sorry, I'm on it...
No paper eating yet Roto. My original argument (or what I intended it to be) is that it is not practical for a home user to invest in a dual cpu setup as they are extremely expensive and provide minimal performance gain over a single processor setup. For the price of two opterons, you could have gotten an A64 FX-53. For the premium you paid for the motherboard, you could have gotten a better video card or more RAM. Unless you have unlimited budget, and few here do, then it's just not worth it. You mentioned how in a dual setup, Windows will assign different programs to different CPUs, increasing performance. I play unreal tournament 2004 with winamp on and Folding@home on in the background all the time. I have a P42.6C with a gig of RAM. I don't get any slowdown at all and my system is hardly high end, so where is the performance increase going to be seen? My opinion is that dual proc. systems are best suited for applications that can use multiple processors. Examples would be Maya (as you mentioned) or Nastran or a host of other scientific apps. These are hardly "desktop" apps though so again I think that while cool to own, dually rigs won't get you much in the way of performance advantages at home.
Same as olv tbh. All systems are amd. Apart from my mums pc, barebone and laptop. ( Wasnt down to my choice tho) Server, amd 2500 Main rig, amd 2800 (running at 3200 ) Linux box duron Spare pc amd 1gbz also have spare: Duron 800mhzs Duron mobile 100mhzs and a spare 1.4ghzs one. Mum's pc is a 2.0, and bare bone is a 2.4 P4. Laptop is a amd centrino 1500. Samsung x05.
OK GUYS AS SAID IN MY FIRST POST I DONT WANT THIS TO TURN INTO A SLAG MATCH SO PLEASE TONE IT DOWN ABIT anyways i cant afford a dual Proc setup for the prices in australia my 3200 cost me $280 and there are non left in aus anyway the point is that over here dual Proc setup are out of almost any normal gamer for there budget and as much as i would love to have dual 3800 64bit athlons i simpley cant afford it
I'm currently running 4 systems, 1 prebuilt and 3 that I put together: AMD K6-2 380 Compaq Motherboard Onboard video (8MB) and sound (A3D) 384MB PC100 48x CDROM 4x DVDROM combo 10GB Seagate drive 30GB Maxtor Netgear Gigabit lan 180w generic PSU Ugly a** Compaq case w/ solid oak front that I made to let it blend in to the decor a little better. AMD AXP 2000+ (Palomino) W/Volcano 11 cooling it (soon to be replaced) MSI KT400 Ultra MB Onboard C-media 5.1 sound D-Link Gigabit Lan 1GB Kingston DDR333 value ram Powercolour 9600 pro 128MB ATI TV Wonder VE 48x CDRW 16X DVD ROM 120GB WD Jumbo buffer HD 500w PSU (generic - came with the X-Alien case) Intel P4 2.4c (stock cooling and speed) MSI Neo 2 FISR MB Onboard C-Media 6.1 sound Onboard Gigabit LAN 1GB Kingston DDR333 Value ram Powercolour 9600 pro 128MB 52xCDRW/16x DVDROM combo 8x DVD RW 120GB WD Jumbo buffer HD 80GB WD Jumbo buffer HD Antec 350w Smart Blue Silver Wavemaster case Intel P4 2.4c @ 3.14 (260 FSB) stock cooling Asus P4P800 Deluxe Onboard Soundmax 6.1 sound Onboard Gigabit LAN 1GB Kingston HyperX DDR400 HIS 9800 Pro 128MB 48X CDRW 16X DVDROM 2 x 160GB WD 8MB Buffer SATA HD in RAID 1 Antec 480w True Blue Lian-Li PC60 Have never had a real problem with any of these systems other than having to RMA the MSI NEO2 when it failed after a bios flash; First and only flash failure I've ever had and the reason I bought the ASUS board for my main rig. I've also bought and built several other systems, all were Intel based and I never had a problem with any of them. The XP2000 and the stock P4 2.4c both get similar frames in most of games played on them. I'm running XP Pro on all 4 right now, but I'm planning to violate the K6-2 with a Linux distro soon - XP runs like a pregnant sow on it.
As far back as I can remember. IBm 486, Intel 486 Intel P75, Intel P90, Intel P200 MMX AMD 180, AMD 200, AMD 233, AMD 350, AMD 500 Duron 1.1Ghz it died and went to silicon heaven Winchip 200 I think Cyrix 133, 200, 350 Current File Server - Win 2003 Server Pro Intel PIII - 450 2x 128MB AMD Aproved Kingston DIMM's (used to be for my AMD 500 which got lost, so bought this Intel Chip) Vodoo III 16MB AGP 2x10GB IBM + WD Drives Creative AWE64 Creative DVD 12x Monowall Firewall AMD K6/2 350 64MB DIMM 8MB Daytona PCI Video Card CD writer 2x Boot and run off floppy drive. Game Server - Win XP Pro AMD 1Ghz Thunderbird 2x256 DDR 266 Time Computers Memory. Cheap board with onboard sound Geforce 4 MMX 64MB Hauppagge PVR II 250 TV Card SIG SCSI Controller 3x Compaq 18GB SCSI II 2x Seagate 18GB 10K SCSI II 1x IBM 10GB 10K SCSI III 1x IBM 120GB ATA 133 Lite-on DVD Lite-on DVD RW 300 Watt power supplie My workstation - Win XP Pro AMD 2600 Barton 333 @ 2300 2x1GB DDR 400 OCZ Platinum Memory 2-2-5-2 MSI Delta K6 FLSR Gainward FX5900 CoolFx water cooled Version Creative Live Platinum 2x120GB SATA Seagate Thermaltake Xaser III case Thermaltae Aquarius III WC Lite-on DVD Lite-on DVD RW Thermaltake 480watt butterfly Power supply with clear side window/lights I am using all four of these systems on 2 x 19"" CRT IBM Moniters that have each got dual VGA Inputs. No problems with any system except my workstation. The prolem was with the memory as I couldnt get it to boot properly and always got blue screen errors. E-mail to OCZ the problems and they e-mailed back with the timings I should use for the board. Changed timmings and no problems since and all hunkey dorrey. The old 486 and early Pentium chips had been converted into key chains and fancy fridge magnets My brother has the same board chip and gpu as my workstation and has alot of trouble with it not powering on first time when you hit the power button and also restarts its self alot when in use. He has my old Intel P4 400 Watt power supplie that was used in my Game Sever which isnt powerful enough for his 2600, also his chip is running very hot at 75 degrees as his heatsink isnt adaquet enough as it was used on his old duron 1.1GHZ. So the problems with his AMD system is down to using old equipment that isnt powerful enough for the current stuff. Im sat with a smile waiting for his hole system to go poof............... then watch his anger and screems haha
Oh year I did have a couple of problems with my Game server. The case came set at 110 volt and didnt check so it blew up when pluged in. Also the 1Ghz Thunderbird chip blew up, I installed it and had not fitted the heatsink to it. Guess how long it lasted. It blew from 0 to 3 seconds, that was cool but not at the time as I had just spent £220 o it. I phoned up to send it back saying its dead and just blew for no reason at all. Guy on the phone had the cheek to ask did you turn your computer on with no heatsink and fan??? I replyied Of course not, I have been building computers for years and I aint that stupid. Sales personh sorry sir, I have to ask these stupid questions, I knew you wouldnt of done that. new one came and I made sure the heatsink was on this time Sorry You wanted performance issues and not bad building issues didnt you??
if that were the case, and computers were faster on a single processor based systems, then why make dual, quad and 8+ processor based servers, except for maybe umm, any kind of 3d renering, or high number crunching. Anyway not to start a flame war, but i agree with you on the AMD/Server-Dual mobo situation it is pretty expensive, especially for us canucks, try doubleing all those numbers.
my previous machines... gateway p166 overclocked to 200 abit bp6 dual 366 celerons overclocked to 550 replaced that with one of my current machines: abit kt7a raid xp1700 512mb ram 160gb drive geforce4mx replaced motherboard with aopen ak77x8 to get the graphi card to work and my main machine: abit at7max2 duron1800 512mb ram 40gb drive 9600xt 19" iiyama monitor (fantastic) and a zboard. my server dell p2 350 512mb ram 40gb drive server2003 my arcade controller msi microatx kt133 mboard xp1800 256mb ram onboard video! and i do have a microatx celeron 700 that i might just use for linux or somehting i haven't had any issues with any of them except: frying the bios on my at7max kt7a raid incompatible with nvidia cards higher than geforce2!
This is corvette's thread and I want to respect him so this'll be my last post. Dual, quad and 8-way cpu setups definately have their place in the world. There are applications out there that are written to access more than one cpu at a time, greatly increasing performance. Home/desktop apps on the other hand are generally written to access only one cpu. Therefore, there is no performance advantage to be had from adding another processor. The instance where you WILL see a performance advantage on the desktop is during intense multitaksing. For example, playing doom3 while in the background you are folding, ripping your favorite cd and encoding a movie to divx all at the same time. Even here, the performance gain has not been quantified. Users say their computer just "feels faster" or "more responsive." I haven't been able to locate any numbers to back it up. Therefore, in my opinion, a dually setup for the home/desktop is not worth the extremely prohibitive cost when you could funnel that extra money towards making your single cpu system better.
This will be my last response on the topic as well. If you manually assign tasks to seperate CPUs, there are applications that are in common use that truly WILL benifit from having multiple CPUs. In a few cases, this is a worthwhile pursuit. However, the degree you undervalue multiple CPU desktops is just not right. You dont need to go to such extreme lengths as running Doom 3, ripping a CD/DVD and running a virus scan at the same time to make it worthwhile. Who here does 3D modeling? I know many people here who do. Who uses uncompressed, high resolution images and edits them? Who likes running MSN, IRC, WinAMP, Overclock tweaking utilities and perhaps a game of Counterstrike, or maybe Day of Defeat, or Battlefield 1942, or Unreal Tournament 2004 at the same time? While most people wont be that extreme, there are many people who do. Power users will definitely find a use for dual CPUs; While an FX-53 has a lot of power, it is just not as multi-tasking friendly as Dual Opterons or Dual Xeons-or a Dual core Opteron for that matter. In these cases, it is fully practical for a user to have a dual core CPU - or dual CPUs. Whilst I hate to do this, here is some proof - http://www.tomshardware.com/motherboard/20040514/index.html . Dual Xeons are clearly better than one Extreme Edition. At the same price point, with better performance, two Opterons can be better than one FX-53. Now, now that that is finished, lets get back on topic. I use Dell Optiplex GX270s daily at school. They are interesting PCs, and fine for running office applications and various semi-CPU intensive activities. They also run photoshop OK, but arent good for those who push Photoshop hard. They have 256 megabytes of DDR RAM, a Pentium 4 2.6 Ghz, a 40 GB Hard drive, a slimline CD-RW drive and floppy disk drive, and run Windows XP Pro. They seem to run CounterStrike just fine as well But at a price point of $800, they definitely arent worth the money-even including the nice 17" CRT and MX-300 mouse
