Buying Dual Core is not a Waste

purelithium

Distinguished
Jan 21, 2006
335
0
18,780
0
You don't need specific software applications to take advantage of SMP(Symmetrical Multi-Processing). Windows XP supports multiple processing units. This means that even if the application you are using doesn't take advantage of both cores, you will see the benefits. If you are running your game, you now will be able to encode a video file in the background without seeing a drop in your framerates. You will be able to RAR huge files while listening to MP3's while running a virus scan while playing a Video game. All this because you effectively have another CPU to take care of all those "background" activities that most gamers with single core CPU's have to turn off or quit because they'll lose performance.

I run VMware Workstation and this allows me to have two different operating systems running at the exact same time without seeing any slowdown. I tried doing that with my old P4 2.8, with a similar system setup as I have now and my system slowed to a crawl. It's really quite amazing what adding one more CPU will do for you.

Ignore these uninformed people who tell you dual core is a waste of money, because you don't need "software support" for them. It's already been around for years, since W2K. And before that in SunOS, Mac OS, Unix, Linux, and many others.
 

lakedude

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
1,789
0
19,780
0
If you tend to do a hundred things at the same time you are correct. If you tend to do one thing at a time on your computer like I do then dual is a waste.
 

julius

Distinguished
May 19, 2004
168
0
18,680
0
to RAR huge files while listening to MP3's while running a virus scan while playing a Video game. All this because you effectively have another CPU .
all while juggling and eating porkchops :roll:
 

hella-d

Distinguished
Jan 14, 2006
1,019
0
19,310
9
I Agree With The First Guy (purelithium) Completely, I Myself Am A Dual-Core User And It DOES Make Things Alot Better (Even If Your Stuff Isnt Multithreaded) Besides More And More Apps Are Becoming Multithread Capable Anywayse And Just Becuase The Game Isnt Multithreaded Dosent Mean The Video-Card Driver Cant Take Advantage Of Dual CPUs/Dual-Cores (Nvidia) To Make Graphics Performance Better. Why Not Be Ready For The Future. On Top Of That The More Pepole That Buy Dual-Cores The Cheaper They Will Get And Thats Good For Everybody
 

lakedude

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
1,789
0
19,780
0
Don't roll your eyes. It's true.
OK I've got a 3200+ Winchester clocked at 2k mated to a 7800GT and I get 7060 3dMarks (2005). What does your system score?

The current prices for the current equivelent to my system:

xfx 7800 $289
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814150108

3200+ $164
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103535

total=$453 (plus shipping)

Near as I can tell your stuff is currently worth:

AMD 3800+ x2 $313
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103562

asus 6600 $102
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103562

total=$415

You cpu and card cost 91.6% of mine so your 3dMark score should be 7060 * 91.6% = about 6400.
 

lakedude

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
1,789
0
19,780
0
Well thanks but I wasn't asking you. I get about 3146 on 3dMark 2006. I'm betting my value for the CPU and video card together beats you system as well.

Each 3dMark06 cost me $453 (today, cpu and video card only)/3146 = 14.4 cents per 3dMark. How much would yours cost at today's prices?

about $600 for your cpu and video card / 4007 = about 15 cents per 3dMark

A figure that would be much higher if you didn't overclock.
 

endyen

Splendid
May 19, 2003
8,161
0
30,790
2
I think dual core is absolutely necesary, if you have 7 viruses running, have a large collection of spyware, and want to do all that useful stuff like email and surf.
While XP tries to deal with two cores, if you are running a few apps, like encoding and antivirus, while gaming, there will be crossover. Your game is already slowed because it is on a slower core, but now it also has to deal with other progs using it's chip. Pi$$ on it, if your cant set your priorities, you deserve what you get.
 

purelithium

Distinguished
Jan 21, 2006
335
0
18,780
0
blah blah... my benchmark is better than yours would be.... blah blah

OK... so what? I'm not trying to see who's dick is bigger.

I'm saying that everyone who shits on dual cores because individual games don't take advantages of two cores aren't taking in the whole picture. I don't care about benchmarks. I'm talking real-world usage. Have you tried compressing video while playing a game? Wouldn't that be a rediculous experience? But what if you could. What if you could be compressing your home movies like I do and not have to ditch your rig for the 5-6 hours it would take for a miniDV tape. Wouldn't it be great to be able to still USE it? I'll tell you what. It is really nice. I love being able to do things now that I wasn't able to before because of the limitations my HARDWARE put on me. The software was ready(full SMP support in both Linux and XP), but the stuff available to consumers wasn't.

I don't usually play games. That's why I bought a rig that would do what I want it to do. BUT I know that It will do what I say it will.

Have you even used a SMP system before? It seems that there's a major paradigm shift that needs to happen in the minds of consumers. Computers nolonger have to do one task at a time. You CAN do lots of things at the same time. Finally our computers will enable us to truly multi-task. Not just pseudo-multi-task by prioritizing which instruction gets which processing cycle. Now we have multiple processing units that can do that many more things at once.
 

Vile

Distinguished
Jul 4, 2004
521
0
18,980
0
I think dual core is absolutely necesary, if you have 7 viruses running, have a large collection of spyware, and want to do all that useful stuff like email and surf.
LMFAO!

Can we turn this into the 'quote of the week' or something?
 

philderbeast

Distinguished
Dec 12, 2005
50
0
18,630
0
your game will proberly run FASTER even though it is ona a slower core...

but you will say that dosent make sence, but what iff you could give the game EVERY SINGLE cycle of the cpu to use rather than having other processes running in the background (like the big one called windows that will take cycles to do stuff)

so even though each core is slower (although only marginly) you will get as good/better performance than it, with out having to close down every single application other than windows while you do it.

you whant real world, then just play a game and listen to music.

or surf the wed while doing a virus scan. or heven forbid you might virus scan while playing a game.

its this simple ability not to have to do something else while you do a virus scan etc that realy makes dual core worth it. rather than doing a virus scan and then having to leave your computer and not be able to own some n00bs in your fav fps at the same time :)
 

choirbass

Distinguished
Dec 14, 2005
1,586
0
19,780
0
i had found this info on another site awhile back, didnt use it till recently though, but theres also a registry hack you can do to make it so single threaded apps can use both cores, even if it is only up to 50% of each core, effectively adding up to the same level of performance in the single threaded app (i find its particularly useful, especially when cool n quiet is enabled, neither core gets too hot, cuz theyre both only running at half speed most of the time, aside from the occasional usage spike, but both are half free to process other things, the same as if you had one completely unused core)

http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/52433/?o=80


but heres the hack:

1. Click Start, click Run, type regedit in the Open box, and then click OK.
2. Right-click HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINESYSTEMCurrentControlSetControlSession Manager, point to New, and then click Key.
3. Type Throttle for the new key name.
4. Right-click Throttle, point to New, and then click DWORD Value.
5. Type PerfEnablePackageIdle for the value name.
6. Right-click PerfEnablePackageIdle, and then click Modify.
7. In the Edit DWORD Value box, type 1. In the Value data box, make sure that Hexadecimal is selected, and then click OK.
8. Quit Registry Editor.
 

DuxSyagrius

Distinguished
Dec 22, 2005
205
0
18,680
0
You have a valid point, but lets take it a step further. Lets take a 2 hour vob file. The X2 will convert it to a Divx file in about 60 minutes. An A64 3200 should do the task in about 87 minutes give or take. Who would spend another 150 bucks to SAVE 27 minutes? I would.

Here is another! Who would spend $200 on a DFI LAN Party mobo to GUARANTEE a 300mhz FSB instead on a lesser board for 100 that MIGHT get 300 but is more likely to do 235mhz. I wouldnt.

Speaking of graphics cards, who in thier right mind would choose a $300 7800GT over a $189 6800GS? So you can get more marks on a synthetic benchmark? So you can enable 2X more AA on BF2 that you arent even going to notice cuz you are too busy getting FRAGGED? I woudnt buy a 7800GT for that....

Who pays an extra $100 for that extra 1GB on RAM so they can load a BF2 map 2 minutes faster? I wouldnt. But I would pay more for an extra GB for I can enable maximum sized armies on Rome total war.

See my point? To each his own brother! What is acceptable to you may not be acceptable to him. I am going to buy an X2 3800. I am looking forward to ty to make it work like 2 computers in once since I have an ATI card and two monitors (hydravision). I will have 2 HDD on thier own separate channels. 2GB of RAM. It may work. It may not, but according to a very reliable source, his X2 4200 needs 2 Prime 95s running along with one more CPU intensive program running in the background to render his computer unusable. I think it is safe to say your 3200 couldnt do that. What could be better than ripping and encoding a movie while playing a video game? Granted, you may not finish the movie in 60 minutes like I quoted above, but at least it CAN be done. Is that worth an extra $150. I think so.

If you want to go the price/performance route, A sempron 3100 coupled with a 6800GS would give the best ratio. Why wouldnt one want to go that route? Cuz S754 and AGP is dead technology. Its heyday is in the past. One could argue the same point about single core as well.

What it comes down to is that you are trying to justify in your own mind why you are going to keep your system the way it is instead of upgrading to dual core. While your reasoning is totally understandable, it is fruitless to try and say "your system should have 91% of the performance of mine" not to mention the fact that you are using 3D mark as a measuring stick. The real measuiring stick is user satisfaction. Let pure lithium be happy with his system for his own reasons. Lets not hate. Why not just participate?
 

ArthurDent

Distinguished
Dec 8, 2005
20
0
18,510
0
Purelithium, you're absolutely right dude.

Lakedude by posting your benchmark results it's obvious you completely miss the point of the post.

I use my PC a lot... for different purposes, and I reap the benefits of dual core. I guess if you use your PC purely for gaming then you won't be taking advantage of dual core so much but don't assume it's a waste for everyone just because your particular habits don't take advantage of it.
 

rodney_ws

Splendid
Dec 29, 2005
3,819
0
22,810
17
Just an observation... most of the people who say dual-core CPUs are virtually useless don't actually own one. As someone who does own one, I can honestly say it is a different computing experience. When a process goes crazy (Windows does that sort of thing from time to time) it is nice to still have a responsive PC. Being able to Alt-Tab out of even the largest application (BF2 consumes over 1 GB of RAM) is not only amazing but comes in handy as well. Everything is going towards this technology so why fight it?
 

Similar threads


TRENDING THREADS