Dual Core Pentiums?

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

There has been quite a bit of press regarding the Intel dual core CPUs. Are
they available to the Build It Yourself market yet? Any ideas regarding the
subject?
 

BP

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2004
264
0
18,780
0
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Check out "Tom's Hardware Guide". They did a long article on these.

"Paolo Pignatelli" <Paolo@DotNetStore.com> wrote in message
news:e9Dme.1375$hg.368@fe12.lga...
> There has been quite a bit of press regarding the Intel dual core CPUs.
> Are
> they available to the Build It Yourself market yet? Any ideas regarding
> the
> subject?
>
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Check out this link
http://www.motherboards.org/reviews/hardware/1513_1.html
APR

"Paolo Pignatelli" <Paolo@DotNetStore.com> wrote in message
news:e9Dme.1375$hg.368@fe12.lga...
> There has been quite a bit of press regarding the Intel dual core CPUs.
> Are
> they available to the Build It Yourself market yet? Any ideas regarding
> the
> subject?
>
>
 

JohnS

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2004
314
0
18,780
0
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Poop is they greatly reduce "latency" between devices. If that is so,
then
we will see gains of 10x or more in performance. I've been benching
ddr ram
vs ddr2 in a disk imaging operation, and the ddr2 is giving me a speed
gain
of 40% over the ddr. I just wonder if we get the same effect with dual
core
and ddr3. Waiting to see.

johns
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article <e9Dme.1375$hg.368@fe12.lga>, Paolo Pignatelli says...
> There has been quite a bit of press regarding the Intel dual core CPUs. Are
> they available to the Build It Yourself market yet? Any ideas regarding the
> subject?
>
>
>
Dual core CPUS are a complete waste of time for the home market at the
moment. Still, won't stop fools being parted with their cash.

--
Conor


"Be incomprehensible. If they can't understand, they can't disagree"
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"Conor" <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote...
>>
> Dual core CPUS are a complete waste of time for the home market at the
> moment. Still, won't stop fools being parted with their cash.

Dual-core CPUs or dual CPUs give a significant performance advantage to
those who multi-task and to those who use SMP-aware apps like Photoshop.
While this may not describe a majority of the home market, there are a
significant number of "power users" who can benefit.
 

BP

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2004
264
0
18,780
0
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

The technology comes first. The applications that use that technology come
much later.
Some want to be "ready". Others will play catch-up only when they are ready.

"Conor" <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d096e797ec918cd989da2@news.individual.net...
> In article <e9Dme.1375$hg.368@fe12.lga>, Paolo Pignatelli says...
>> There has been quite a bit of press regarding the Intel dual core CPUs.
>> Are
>> they available to the Build It Yourself market yet? Any ideas regarding
>> the
>> subject?
>>
>>
>>
> Dual core CPUS are a complete waste of time for the home market at the
> moment. Still, won't stop fools being parted with their cash.
>
> --
> Conor
>
>
> "Be incomprehensible. If they can't understand, they can't disagree"
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Conor wrote:
> In article <e9Dme.1375$hg.368@fe12.lga>, Paolo Pignatelli says...
>
>>There has been quite a bit of press regarding the Intel dual core CPUs. Are
>>they available to the Build It Yourself market yet? Any ideas regarding the
>>subject?
>>
>>
>>
>
> Dual core CPUS are a complete waste of time for the home market at the
> moment. Still, won't stop fools being parted with their cash.
>
Forget about Intel... Go to anandtech and check out the benchmarks for the
AMD x2. It blows away everything. Even if you're not a serious multitasker.
I went to an Intel trade show a week ago and all I heard was excuses and
trash talk about AMD.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article <TMGdneZXu8X8pj3fRVn-uA@conversent.net>, BP says...
> The technology comes first. The applications that use that technology come
> much later.

Dual Intel CPU boards have been out for decade. Just how much longer
should we wait?

> Some want to be "ready". Others will play catch-up only when they are ready.
>

Well a decades worth of hardware availability and not many apps a home
user is likely to use doesn't convince me.


--
Conor


"Be incomprehensible. If they can't understand, they can't disagree"
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Conor wrote:
> In article <TMGdneZXu8X8pj3fRVn-uA@conversent.net>, BP says...
>
>>The technology comes first. The applications that use that technology come
>>much later.
>
>
> Dual Intel CPU boards have been out for decade. Just how much longer
> should we wait?
>
>
>>Some want to be "ready". Others will play catch-up only when they are ready.
>>
>
>
> Well a decades worth of hardware availability and not many apps a home
> user is likely to use doesn't convince me.
>
>
That's bullshit. the dual-cores are smoking everything. especially if
you're into
ripping dvd's, surfing the web, checking out the newsgroups all at the same
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Conor wrote:

> In article <TMGdneZXu8X8pj3fRVn-uA@conversent.net>, BP says...
>
>>The technology comes first. The applications that use that technology come
>>much later.
>
>
> Dual Intel CPU boards have been out for decade. Just how much longer
> should we wait?

No need to wait. There's a ton of applications written for those 'Dual
Intel CPU boards" that "have been out for decade."

>>Some want to be "ready". Others will play catch-up only when they are ready.
>>
>
>
> Well a decades worth of hardware availability and not many apps a home
> user is likely to use doesn't convince me.

Non sequitur. The "decades worth of hardware" you talk about was not for
the "home user."

For all the (non) sense your argument makes you might as well pine that
there aren't more 'home user' space suits on the market since 'space craft
have been out for decades'.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Conor wrote:
> In article <TMGdneZXu8X8pj3fRVn-uA@conversent.net>, BP says...
>
>>The technology comes first. The applications that use that technology come
>>much later.
>
>
> Dual Intel CPU boards have been out for decade. Just how much longer
> should we wait?
>
>
>>Some want to be "ready". Others will play catch-up only when they are ready.
>>
>
>
> Well a decades worth of hardware availability and not many apps a home
> user is likely to use doesn't convince me.
>
>
Aside from which, you have to take the chipset DRM to use the
processors. I'm a current dual processor user, my aging dual xeon system
is well past its prime. Once Intel announced they were forcing their
DRM scheme into the chipset you need for the Pentium-D, that eliminated
my desire to have anything to do with it or any other Intel product
period. If you can get the average person to grasp that if they take the
bait and bite now, they wont be able to do any of the media operations
they currently can - maybe they will figure it out.



--
If you want to protect your freedom to use digital media, don't buy
Intel Chipsets, Intel Processors, any Sony product
period, and strongly encourage your friends & everyone you know to do
the same. We are the product, and if we walk away
the media companies have no eyes for DRM enabled systems. This is our
once chance to fight back, I suggest we use it.
 

BP

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2004
264
0
18,780
0
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

> And who said "PCs?"
What's the name of this group again?

>> Windows couldn't multitask until version 3.0,

> Not true.
Wow. All that swearing for nothing.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

David Maynard writes:

> Non sequitur. The "decades worth of hardware" you talk about was not for
> the "home user."

I've been running a dual-processor system for eight years. It has been
there for those who wanted it.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Mxsmanic wrote:
> David Maynard writes:
>
>
>>Non sequitur. The "decades worth of hardware" you talk about was not for
>>the "home user."
>
>
> I've been running a dual-processor system for eight years. It has been
> there for those who wanted it.
>

Yes, there were no laws preventing someone from buying them. That does not,
however, mean the market they were intended for was 'home user'.

I'm running dual processor systems too. I also have a PDP-11 minicomputer
and a Data General Nova 2/10, but they weren't intended for the typical
'home user' either.
 

BP

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2004
264
0
18,780
0
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
news:11a2uba20rl8n25@corp.supernews.com...
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> David Maynard writes:
>>
>>
>>>Non sequitur. The "decades worth of hardware" you talk about was not for
>>>the "home user."
>>
>>
>> I've been running a dual-processor system for eight years. It has been
>> there for those who wanted it.
>>
>
> Yes, there were no laws preventing someone from buying them. That does
> not, however, mean the market they were intended for was 'home user'.
>
> I'm running dual processor systems too. I also have a PDP-11 minicomputer
> and a Data General Nova 2/10, but they weren't intended for the typical
> 'home user' either.

Wow! Where do you buy replacement tubes for that PDP? ;-P
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

BP writes:

> Jesus. How old are you guys? Old PCs couldn't multitask at all. They ran
> friggin DOS ferchrissakes.

There were other computers before PCs, and there still are.

> Windows couldn't multitask until version 3.0, and
> even then it was not multitasking as people know it today. The BSOD was a
> daily occurance for any brave souls who attempted it.

Windows 3.0 is fifteen years old; a long time in computer terms.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Ed Cregger writes:

> Let's not confuse multitasking for parallel processing.

And let's remember that parallel processing is always inferior to scalar
processing, for a given amount of processing power. That is, you're
better off with a machine that can execute a single instruction stream
at 100 gigaflops than with a machine that can execute two instruction
streams at 50 gigaflops.

The reason for this is that all parallel and scalar operations can be
handled by a scalar processor, but some scalar operations cannot be made
parallel. So many tasks _must_ execute on a single processor, no matter
how many processors you have, and these tasks will not run any faster
than a single processor can run.

A more important advantage of multiple processors is that individual
tasks are less likely to hog the system, since most aren't (or can't be)
written to use multiple execution threads. Thus, even if a single task
becomes processor-bound, you can still do other things, whereas a
single-processor system tends to become very sluggish when running
compute-bound tasks. This is a striking and obvious difference when you
are running a multiprocessor system versus a single-processor system.

Of course, if you have n processors and n tasks monopolizing all of
them, even a multiprocessor system becomes sluggish.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

David Maynard writes:

> Yes, there were no laws preventing someone from buying them. That does not,
> however, mean the market they were intended for was 'home user'.

It's hard to see a clear advantage to running more than one processor
for an average home user. The average user would be better off with a
single, faster processor. There are some advantages to multiprocessor
systems on servers, and on workstations if no single-processor system is
available with the requisite total horsepower. I have a slight personal
affection for multiprocessor systems because they remind me of
mainframes, but it's hard to see any clear advantage to having them
beyond the handful I've already mentioned.

> I'm running dual processor systems too. I also have a PDP-11 minicomputer
> and a Data General Nova 2/10, but they weren't intended for the typical
> 'home user' either.

Were there multiprocessor PDP-11 systems?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

BP writes:

> Wow! Where do you buy replacement tubes for that PDP? ;-P

Only the very earliest computers used tubes; transistors (discrete and
then integrated) have been the rule for over half a century. All PDP
machines were solid-state (no tubes). The only tubes used in
computerland over the past few decades have been CRTs, and it looks like
they might _finally_ be replaced in the next few years (I no longer have
any myself).

There is a rumor, however, that SAGE continued to use some tube
computers until the mid-1980s (it originally had 22 gigantic tube
computers scattered across the U.S., each requiring about four megawatts
for machine power and air conditioning).

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article <tpednRePpp7eBzzfRVn-ug@conversent.net>, BP says...
>
> > And who said "PCs?"
> What's the name of this group again?
>
You've just shot yourself in the foot. It is to discuss hardware built
for PCs from scratch using blank PCBs and components. It isn't to
discuss homebuilt PCs, problems with hardware or hardware made by a
manufacturer which means that 99.99999999% of the posts in this group
actually don;t belong here.

--
Conor


"Be incomprehensible. If they can't understand, they can't disagree"
 

ME

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2004
1,746
0
19,780
0
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

>There are some advantages to multiprocessor
>systems on servers, and on workstations

But aren't home users becoming more and more like the
above?
 

BP

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2004
264
0
18,780
0
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

That was a joke, son.
Good thing I didn't reference punch cards!

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:t573a1tknbt27s61am7r6a7r05gafmjtbk@4ax.com...
> BP writes:
>
>> Wow! Where do you buy replacement tubes for that PDP? ;-P
>
> Only the very earliest computers used tubes; transistors (discrete and
> then integrated) have been the rule for over half a century. All PDP
> machines were solid-state (no tubes). The only tubes used in
> computerland over the past few decades have been CRTs, and it looks like
> they might _finally_ be replaced in the next few years (I no longer have
> any myself).
>
> There is a rumor, however, that SAGE continued to use some tube
> computers until the mid-1980s (it originally had 22 gigantic tube
> computers scattered across the U.S., each requiring about four megawatts
> for machine power and air conditioning).
>
> --
> Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
 

BP

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2004
264
0
18,780
0
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"Conor" <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d0bd4e93faa2db3989dfe@news.individual.net...
> In article <tpednRePpp7eBzzfRVn-ug@conversent.net>, BP says...
>>
>> > And who said "PCs?"
>> What's the name of this group again?
>>
> You've just shot yourself in the foot. It is to discuss hardware built
> for PCs from scratch using blank PCBs and components. It isn't to
> discuss homebuilt PCs, problems with hardware or hardware made by a
> manufacturer which means that 99.99999999% of the posts in this group
> actually don;t belong here.
>

Some factual info:
Alt.Comp.Hardware.PC-Homebuilt - Description: Building your PC from
motherboards and cards.

See:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt/browse_thread/thread/c13397fbbc1710b2/84346d5b40d7e9d4?q=alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt+%2Bcharter&rnum=6&hl=en#84346d5b40d7e9d4



begin 666 dot_clear.gif
K1TE&.#EA`0`!`( ``/___P```"'Y! $`````+ `````!``$```("1 $`.P``
`
end
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Conor writes:

> It isn't to discuss homebuilt PCs ...

Looks like alt.comp.hardware.PC-HOMEBUILT to me.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
 

Similar threads


TRENDING THREADS