Dual Core Pentiums?

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?
52 answers Last reply
More about dual core pentiums
  1. 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?
    >
    >
  2. 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?
    >
    >
  3. 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
  4. 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"
  5. 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.
  6. 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"
  7. 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.
  8. 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"
  9. 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
  10. 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'.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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"
  21. 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?
  22. 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.
  23. 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
  24. 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.
  25. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    In article <hfl3a1pit5p4f5870g63a7f406kgvcms6l@4ax.com>, Mxsmanic
    says...
    > Conor writes:
    >
    > > It isn't to discuss homebuilt PCs ...
    >
    > Looks like alt.comp.hardware.PC-HOMEBUILT to me.
    >
    From the group FAQ...

    It is a bastard child of the newsgroup
    alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt that was intended to offload discussion
    related to assembling PCs from consumer-level boards and devices, from
    the
    discussions of building computer parts from electronic components.


    --
    Conor


    "Be incomprehensible. If they can't understand, they can't disagree"
  26. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "Conor" <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1d0c268a483aa93b989e09@news.individual.net...
    > In article <hfl3a1pit5p4f5870g63a7f406kgvcms6l@4ax.com>, Mxsmanic
    > says...
    >> Conor writes:
    >>
    >> > It isn't to discuss homebuilt PCs ...
    >>
    >> Looks like alt.comp.hardware.PC-HOMEBUILT to me.
    >>
    > From the group FAQ...
    >
    > It is a bastard child of the newsgroup
    > alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt that was intended to offload discussion
    > related to assembling PCs from consumer-level boards and devices, from
    > the
    > discussions of building computer parts from electronic components.
    >
    Funny. I was politely ushered out of that group way back for posting about
    questions about homebuilt PCs and they sent me HERE!
    I'm expecting Kadichiata Man any minute now!
  27. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    BP wrote:

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

    Irrelevant to what was written.


    >>>Windows couldn't multitask until version 3.0,
    >
    >
    >>Not true.
    >
    > Wow. All that swearing for nothing.

    Not from here there wasn't.
  28. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    BP wrote:

    > "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
    >

    All 'solid state' but I do have a vacuum tube module from an old tube computer.

    The tubes test good.
  29. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Mxsmanic wrote:

    > 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.

    Again, you drift off into ancillary matters. The issue was why there aren't
    more SMP aware applications when dual boards have been 'around for decade'
    and the answer is quite simple. There is not much incentive to write SMP
    aware applications for people who don't generally use multiple
    processor/core systems.

    The 'decade' worth of multiple processor systems were generally for
    professional use and what SMP aware apps were traditionally written for and
    not the 'home user'. And if the 'home user' starts using multiprocessor
    systems in significant numbers then the apps will follow, just as they did
    for the professional markets.


    > 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.

    No offense but that's been your opinion of just about every modern
    computing device, from PDAs to notebooks to current computer system which
    you claim are 'no faster' than 50 years ago, so you'll pardon me if I don't
    take your 'of no use' comment to heart.


    >>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?

    Not shared bus.
  30. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    BP writes:

    > Good thing I didn't reference punch cards!

    I was still using punched cards in the 1980s for bootstrap loaders. I
    don't know if they are still usable for that purpose. I'm sure there
    are still people using card punches and readers somewhere. Punched
    cards are very convenient. I used to be fairly good at keypunching.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
  31. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:jge4a1lkjlbps7uatju2fsi528ou8rdqr5@4ax.com...
    > BP writes:
    >
    >> Good thing I didn't reference punch cards!
    >
    > I was still using punched cards in the 1980s for bootstrap loaders. I
    > don't know if they are still usable for that purpose. I'm sure there
    > are still people using card punches and readers somewhere. Punched
    > cards are very convenient. I used to be fairly good at keypunching.
    >
    > --
    > Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

    A favorite prank in college was slipping nonsense cards into someones stack
    before the got their turn on the VAX. We never let our stacks out of our
    sight!
  32. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    me@privacy.net writes:

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

    Not that I can see. The average home user with a recent PC already has
    far more horsepower than he needs. Only video games require any real
    horsepower today, plus a few niche applications such as the
    aforementioned DVD work.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
  33. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Mxsmanic wrote:

    > me@privacy.net writes:
    >
    >
    >>But aren't home users becoming more and more like the
    >>above?
    >
    >
    > Not that I can see. The average home user with a recent PC already has
    > far more horsepower than he needs. Only video games require any real
    > horsepower today, plus a few niche applications such as the
    > aforementioned DVD work.
    >

    Different verse to the same song that gets sung everytime the CPU takes
    a leap forward. The samething was said of the 386, 486, Pentium, PII,
    PIII, Xenon, etc.... Samething was said of 10 MB harddrives...then 50,
    100, 256, 500, etc.....
  34. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    So Dave, what do you see as the next significant *functional* advancement
    for the home PC user?

    While I can agree that a dual core processor for a user who only surfs the
    web is comical, it has been my experience (primarily with IMB compatible
    PC's and the Windows OS since 1991) that it is really not the processor that
    drives the need to upgrade. It is the need for modern peripherals and OS
    compatibility with them that drives the average home user. The processor
    sort of just comes along for the ride. Home users today have a need for
    several USB connected devices so they desire multiple USB connections, front
    and rear. That means they need a new case and a mainboard/chipset to
    accommodate the connections. (I'm being overly simplistic here, there are
    obviously multiple needs at work). Then the OS "needs" to be updated to make
    use of the new functions and the new OS has minimal/recommended hardware
    requirements. So you find a mainboard that fits the needs list and
    hardware/memory requirements and that mainboard and chipset is designed
    around the processor, which of course is the latest and the greatest
    available. You didn't want to upgrade your processor, you wanted a bunch of
    freakin USB connections!
    So now let's look at today's PC market. We've got PCI-express cards coming
    out, PATA HDDs are looking kind of Mesozoic, etc. So you bounce over to
    Newegg and look at mainboards to see what's new that has the "needed"
    features and there they are: 955 chipsets all built around dual core
    processors from Intel or AMD. 865 chipset boards out of stock or in the
    specials bin.
    So that's the market reality. Old as capitalism itself. You don't repair the
    car, you trade it in. Smart? No. Unless you are on the board of D at Intel.

    You seem like a knowledgeable guy who's been around a while, do you see
    anything on the horizon that would actually justify a system upgrade for the
    home PC user?

    "David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
    news:11a4ttlfov78i39@corp.supernews.com...
    > Mxsmanic wrote:
    >
    >> 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.
    >
    > Again, you drift off into ancillary matters. The issue was why there
    > aren't more SMP aware applications when dual boards have been 'around for
    > decade' and the answer is quite simple. There is not much incentive to
    > write SMP aware applications for people who don't generally use multiple
    > processor/core systems.
    >
    > The 'decade' worth of multiple processor systems were generally for
    > professional use and what SMP aware apps were traditionally written for
    > and not the 'home user'. And if the 'home user' starts using
    > multiprocessor systems in significant numbers then the apps will follow,
    > just as they did for the professional markets.
    >
    >
    >> 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.
    >
    > No offense but that's been your opinion of just about every modern
    > computing device, from PDAs to notebooks to current computer system which
    > you claim are 'no faster' than 50 years ago, so you'll pardon me if I
    > don't take your 'of no use' comment to heart.
    >
    >
    >>>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?
    >
    > Not shared bus.
    >
  35. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    BP wrote:

    > So Dave, what do you see as the next significant *functional* advancement
    > for the home PC user?

    Oh wow, if I could definitively answer that question HP should put me on
    the board ;)

    I can tell you what Intel thinks/thought (depending on when you ask) the
    big thing would be and that's multimedia, in all it's glory. We were all
    supposed to be streaming full screen DTV/HDTV, downloading movies (paid
    for, of course), while simultaneously burning DVD movies of our kiddies
    taken with the camcorder. But, for one, broadband hasn't exploded at the
    rate hoped for (neither has DTV and HDTV, even with government mandates,
    but that's another story). It also seems to me that high power media apps
    (HTPC for one) are overly complex (for the home user), rather buggy, poorly
    integrated, unrefined, and comparatively expensive.

    As one example of unrefined (just my opinion), I know of one HTPC
    'integrated' application that boots up with a menu. I.E. "what do you want
    to do?" Well, dad gummit, I'd like the thing to boot up in the same state
    it was in when it left. In my case, the TV. My TV, the thing it's
    supposedly replacing, does. I'd like to be able to hit the button and walk
    away, not sit there for the 'next question'. How about being REAL clever
    and go to the TV normally but play the DVD if there's one in the drive,
    instead of having to exit 'TV mode' and enter 'DVD player' mode? Maybe I'm
    odd but it seems a rather simple thing to have thought of (I'll admit it's
    also humorous to watch my brother-in-law fiddle with a gaggle of switches
    trying to figure out what component is connected to what in his 'hardware'
    home theater, so it's not just a 'software thing')

    I'm not saying that description applies to every one of them. It's just an
    example of how that particular one left a lot of thought out of the
    product. Others have their own problems.

    I have some other multimedia ideas of my own but not all the pieces have
    been invented yet.

    As for other apps, personally, I'd like to see more development in voice
    recognition as well as AI, but I'm not 'in charge'.

    One thing I'm rather surprised about is, considering the traditional
    'fight' in a family to see who gets the computer when, that there isn't
    much in the way of multiple terminal activity going on. I'm not sure that's
    the best solution but I just don't see much discussion about it other than
    "get another computer."

    > While I can agree that a dual core processor for a user who only surfs the
    > web is comical,

    See above. It's just 'late'.

    While that's true for the moment, that same kind of argument was made about
    1 Ghz processors but have you looked at the load on a decent sized DivX
    stream? Scale that up to an HDTV image and you got some serious processing
    to do while 'surfing' the news (even if nothing else).

    > it has been my experience (primarily with IMB compatible
    > PC's and the Windows OS since 1991) that it is really not the processor that
    > drives the need to upgrade. It is the need for modern peripherals and OS
    > compatibility with them that drives the average home user. The processor
    > sort of just comes along for the ride. Home users today have a need for
    > several USB connected devices so they desire multiple USB connections, front
    > and rear. That means they need a new case and a mainboard/chipset to
    > accommodate the connections. (I'm being overly simplistic here, there are
    > obviously multiple needs at work). Then the OS "needs" to be updated to make
    > use of the new functions and the new OS has minimal/recommended hardware
    > requirements. So you find a mainboard that fits the needs list and
    > hardware/memory requirements and that mainboard and chipset is designed
    > around the processor, which of course is the latest and the greatest
    > available. You didn't want to upgrade your processor, you wanted a bunch of
    > freakin USB connections!

    Perhaps, but I'd have just bought a hub.

    > So now let's look at today's PC market. We've got PCI-express cards coming
    > out, PATA HDDs are looking kind of Mesozoic, etc. So you bounce over to
    > Newegg and look at mainboards to see what's new that has the "needed"
    > features and there they are: 955 chipsets all built around dual core
    > processors from Intel or AMD. 865 chipset boards out of stock or in the
    > specials bin.

    Not me. Shoot, I'm still 32 bit and PATA <gasp>.

    Until SATA gets more of the concurrent command processing added and/or
    drive speed increase significantly there's not a compelling reason to
    change (even though my board has the ports).

    > So that's the market reality. Old as capitalism itself. You don't repair the
    > car, you trade it in.

    Don't repair a car, trade it in? Man, you live in a different world that
    *I* do. LOL

    > Smart? No. Unless you are on the board of D at Intel.

    The electronic repair/replace decision is based in capitalism but not for
    the reason I imagine you mean. Automated production facilities churn
    electronics out for a pittance but repair techs don't like working for 10
    cents an hour so it's your choice: pay $75, or more, to repair a 10 buck
    NIC or buy a new one.

    And if you want to 'blame' Intel, and the rest, for making the things so
    cheap in the first place then so be it but it hardly seems rational to me.


    > You seem like a knowledgeable guy who's been around a while, do you see
    > anything on the horizon that would actually justify a system upgrade for the
    > home PC user?

    Depends on what they want to do. If one is heavy into multimedia, or the
    latest game, then there might be a reason but probably not for most home users.

    Well, that's not as restrictive as I made it sound. Have you ever timed
    crunching a DVD? Wouldn't it be nice if it took half the time?

    Now, consider. Maybe the reason more people don't do it now is because it's
    such a pain in the neck and takes so long.
  36. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    David Maynard writes:

    > On a single processor system all these things would be taking time away
    > from the app on the one processor where on a multiprocessor/core machine
    > there's another processor to handle them.

    But a faster single processor is still preferable to two slower
    processors, as the total horsepower remains the same but the overhead of
    managing multiple processors is eliminated.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
  37. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Mxsmanic wrote:
    > David Maynard writes:
    >
    >
    >>On a single processor system all these things would be taking time away
    >>from the app on the one processor where on a multiprocessor/core machine
    >>there's another processor to handle them.
    >

    Again you take off on a tangent completely different than the topic at
    hand, which was whether a system with 'non SMP aware applications'
    benefited at all from multiple processors/cores. And they do because there
    is not just 'one app' running.

    That has nothing to do with whether it's the 'best choice' (especially
    since 'best' is dependent on a host of factors), just that the system does
    benefit from multiple processors/cores.

    > But a faster single processor is still preferable to two slower
    > processors, as the total horsepower remains the same but the overhead of
    > managing multiple processors is eliminated.

    If the only choice was two otherwise identical systems where the processor
    speeds added to the same value, and flat out speed on 'the app' (whatever
    it might be) was the criteria, then that is probably true.

    If, however, 3 Ghz (or whatever the limit for whatever the reason) is the
    fastest you can make the processor run then two of them is better than one.

    And if system responsiveness, rather than flat out number crunching in one
    app, is important then multiple processors are generally better than
    singles, even at the same aggregate speed.
  38. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    No One writes:

    > Different verse to the same song that gets sung everytime the CPU takes
    > a leap forward.

    Only for the past few years it has been true, as hardware speed
    increases have outstripped software bloat. Even a PC several years old
    is more than sufficient for the main "killer apps" of the average PC
    users, namely, e-mail and Web surfing.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
  39. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    >Only for the past few years it has been true, as hardware speed
    >increases have outstripped software bloat. Even a PC several years old
    >is more than sufficient for the main "killer apps" of the average PC
    >users, namely, e-mail and Web surfing.

    But aren't more and more home users using their PCs for
    media servers? Installing TV tuner cards in them and
    storing live Tv feeds on the hard drive for streaming
    to their home networks?
  40. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
    news:0mu5a15g1uvd128jeqddp030ki4nc1pfu9@4ax.com...
    > >Only for the past few years it has been true, as hardware speed
    >>increases have outstripped software bloat. Even a PC several years old
    >>is more than sufficient for the main "killer apps" of the average PC
    >>users, namely, e-mail and Web surfing.
    >
    > But aren't more and more home users using their PCs for
    > media servers? Installing TV tuner cards in them and
    > storing live Tv feeds on the hard drive for streaming
    > to their home networks?

    Yes! The home-built Tivo. That's what I'm looking to do next. Are you doing
    this stuff now? Got any good how-to links for me?
  41. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    In article <29j5a15nm6h0hbknph2sofg4oo7mdpo2k8@4ax.com>, Mxsmanic
    says...
    > No One writes:
    >
    > > Different verse to the same song that gets sung everytime the CPU takes
    > > a leap forward.
    >
    > Only for the past few years it has been true, as hardware speed
    > increases have outstripped software bloat. Even a PC several years old
    > is more than sufficient for the main "killer apps" of the average PC
    > users, namely, e-mail and Web surfing.
    >
    Indeed. I have a nice sideline selling Compaq Deskpros which are
    P3/700-833, 128/256MB RAM (depending if they want Win9x or Linux) and
    10GB HDDs. Apart from gaming, they're up to everything although
    encoding to MP4 is a bit slow.

    --
    Conor


    "Be incomprehensible. If they can't understand, they can't disagree"
  42. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    > I.E. "what do you want
    >to do?" Well, dad gummit, I'd like the thing to boot up in the same state
    >it was in when it left. In my case, the TV. My TV, the thing it's
    >supposedly replacing, does.

    Excellent point!!
  43. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    In article <Lb6dnQo7KPkWnz7fRVn-ig@conversent.net>, BP says...

    > Yes! The home-built Tivo. That's what I'm looking to do next. Are you doing
    > this stuff now? Got any good how-to links for me?
    >
    http://anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2190


    --
    Conor


    "Be incomprehensible. If they can't understand, they can't disagree"
  44. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    me@privacy.net writes:

    > But aren't more and more home users using their PCs for
    > media servers?

    No.

    > Installing TV tuner cards in them and
    > storing live Tv feeds on the hard drive for streaming
    > to their home networks?

    No.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
  45. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Matt wrote:

    > David Maynard wrote:
    >
    >> 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'.
    >>
    >
    > I expect the difference is that dual core is going to be much cheaper
    > than dual CPU.

    I would imagine that's the theory, assuming die yields are good enough.

    > That will lead to an economy of scale for the software.

    Yeah. People tend to be a bit more reluctant writing software for things
    that don't exist vs things that do.
  46. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 23:22:43 -0000, "John Weiss"
    <jrweiss@nospamattglobal.net> wrote:

    >"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.

    Exactly. I built a dual proc Pentium II in 1997, a faster model of
    same in '99 for Windows NT, and a dual proc PIII in 2001 for Windows
    2000 running several dual-proc aware apps, mostly in the graphic
    design realm.

    My question is: shall my next PC (which is about due) be dual proc or
    dual core? I've seen the benefits for years now, and in my situation a
    single processor gets stalled, given my work habits.

    Thoughts appreciated.

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

    rhys writes:

    > My question is: shall my next PC (which is about due) be dual proc or
    > dual core?

    What's wrong with two or more dual-core processors?

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
  48. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 20:02:58 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    >rhys writes:
    >
    >> My question is: shall my next PC (which is about due) be dual proc or
    >> dual core?
    >
    >What's wrong with two or more dual-core processors?

    Nothing, I suppose, but it's overkill for what I do: multitask under
    Win2000 with slightly slower processors, a whack of RAM for Photoshop
    and InDesign and a very good video card. I can get less bleeding edge
    processors and I don't require super-fast drives.

    I'm not doing 3-D renders. Two dual-cores under a 64-bit OS would
    indeed rock.

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

    David Maynard writes:

    > That, no doubt, is why DARPA chose it to be the preferred "universal
    > computing environment" linking together Arpanet research nodes, which
    > evolved into the Internet.

    I'm sure they chose it for reasons other than technical superiority; if
    they wanted the latter, they could have used Multics. Licensing and
    availability issues were very important, then as now. The fact that
    UNIX was a stripped Multics that could run on readily available hardware
    was probably a factor, also, though. And remember that there wasn't
    really much (any?) competition.

    > One can immediately see the benefits to ARPANET. Applications could be
    > developed ONCE and commonly applied to all machines regardless of the
    > particular hardware employed at any one site.

    Multics was written in a high-level language long before UNIX.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Ask a new question

Read More

Homebuilt Hardware Dual Core Systems