So I tried out a dual core CPU...

[sony3127]

EDIT: PLEASE read the rest of the topic or at least the last response before you post a reply... THX.

A good friend of mine built a system with an S939 Athlon64 X2 4200+, an ATI Radeon Xpress 200 based mobo, 2GB (2 x 1GB) DDR400 RAM, a WD 250GB SATAII 16MB HD, an Audigy 2, all in a Thermaltake case w/ 2 x 120mm fans and a 520W Antec PSU. (very similar to mine if you read my sig) I must say that I was NOT impressed at all. I installed many of the same apps that I use such as McAfee AV & Firewall. I tried multi-tasking by running different apps such as DVD Shrink and browsing the web, and watching a DVD movie using PowerDVD 6 while using Adobe Photoshop 7. Just a few common apps running along side each other much the same as I do on my own machine. (the above mentioned is just couple of combo's I tried out of many) It just did not seem as responsive as my build. Maybe I'm expecting too much from dual cores, but this was a clean load of WinXP on his and it just was not as snappy as my single core A64 4000+. WHAT GIVES? AM I JUST NOT TESTING IT RIGHT OR WHAT? lol

 

[ikjadoon]

I would say maybe because you have 200Mhz more CPU power, you have a 10k Raptor, and a 7800GTX.....

~Ibrahim~

 

[jitpublisher]

Just shooting in the dark here, but are both cores showing up in the device manager? Also there are drivers/software from AMD for the dual core processors that may have some impact, you can check here:
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/TechnicalResources/0,,30_182_871_13118,00.html

 

[FITCamaro]

Well for one you have 2 hard drives so if you're shrinking a DVD file from one hard drive to another that helps drastically. And you also have a dedicated graphics card so the CPU isn't having to do as much for rendering the screen.

Have you ever done video encoding on a dual core vs. a single. Any threaded app will run twice as fast. I forget the file size but a file that took 6-8 hours to encode on an Athlon 3000+ w/ 2GB of RAM only took 2 hours to encode on an Athlon X2 3800+ w/ 1GB RAM. 200MHz doesn't create that kind of difference. And that was using Windows Media Encoder.

 

[BaronMatrix]

Most people above enumerated the issues here, it is likely

a) you throttled the system at the IO based on your choice of multitasking.
b) you are using a faster single core so the focused apps will appear a little snappier.
c) You friend may not have all the AMD dual core patches installed, the X2's require an MS patch (this may be a gaming patch, not sure as I do not recall) and the AMD dual core patch (oops, I mean optimizer -- this one always made me chuckle).

OF course he may just be unlucky. I went from a single 3200+ 2.2 to a dual 2.2 and THERE IS DEFINITELY A DIFFERENCE IN EVERYTHING.

Also because you were doing apps that like more cache and a better video card, the 4000+ has 1 MB, the total amount on the dual 4200+ and the 7800 will destroy Xpess 200.


To the poster, I would say do this:

Start browser, open several pages with Flash. Start D3/Q4 whatever at highest playable res.

Tell me if dual core isn't faster.

 

[Weeble]

Most people above enumerated the issues here, it is likely

a) you throttled the system at the IO based on your choice of multitasking.
b) you are using a faster single core so the focused apps will appear a little snappier.
c) You friend may not have all the AMD dual core patches installed, the X2's require an MS patch (this may be a gaming patch, not sure as I do not recall) and the AMD dual core patch (oops, I mean optimizer -- this one always made me chuckle).

OF course he may just be unlucky. I went from a single 3200+ 2.2 to a dual 2.2 and THERE IS DEFINITELY A DIFFERENCE IN EVERYTHING.

Also because you were doing apps that like more cache and a better video card, the 4000+ has 1 MB, the total amount on the dual 4200+ and the 7800 will destroy Xpess 200.


To the poster, I would say do this:

Start browser, open several pages with Flash. Start D3/Q4 whatever at highest playable res.

Tell me if dual core isn't faster.

Amazing --- I agree

Settled whether I was going to buy a new Conroe/Allendale now..no point as the world is about to end.

 

[sony3127]

I would say maybe because you have 200Mhz more CPU power, you have a 10k Raptor, and a 7800GTX.....

~Ibrahim~

Ok, I don't think that 200MHz is going to make THAT much of a difference, but maybe it does. IDK I only install games on my Raptor drive and use it for nothing else really so I don't think that had anything to do with it. I don't store DVD's on the Raptor or anything like that. I partitioned his drive just as I have my own 250GB drive... basically three 80GB drives w/ XP on the C drive. (and both of us have the EXACT same drive; and the page file is on C drive) I had installed all software and MS updates and YES I had defragged it; and I even ran CCleaner before the defrag to clean out junk/temp files and ran the registry cleaner. I don't know if by installing ALL MS updates that put the dual core patches in that you guys are refering to, but do I need to get a specific one through AMD? or would the MS updates have them in there? THANKS FOR THE HELP SO FAR!

Oh, BTW, no I'm not hoping that my "single core reigns supreme" as one poster put it. I really want to see an improvment in multi core CPU's because I want to buy a C2D! (I know it's AMD vs Intel, but I should still see an improvment between single and dual cores I would think)

 

[sony3127]

Most people above enumerated the issues here, it is likely

a) you throttled the system at the IO based on your choice of multitasking.
b) you are using a faster single core so the focused apps will appear a little snappier.
c) You friend may not have all the AMD dual core patches installed, the X2's require an MS patch (this may be a gaming patch, not sure as I do not recall) and the AMD dual core patch (oops, I mean optimizer -- this one always made me chuckle).

OF course he may just be unlucky. I went from a single 3200+ 2.2 to a dual 2.2 and THERE IS DEFINITELY A DIFFERENCE IN EVERYTHING.

Also because you were doing apps that like more cache and a better video card, the 4000+ has 1 MB, the total amount on the dual 4200+ and the 7800 will destroy Xpess 200.


To the poster, I would say do this:

Start browser, open several pages with Flash. Start D3/Q4 whatever at highest playable res.

Tell me if dual core isn't faster.

Well honeslty I was trying not to do too many things that would put more load on the GPU, as opposed to the CPU. Playing a game really wouldn't be fair to his system being that it's an integrated card as opposed to my 7800GTX. I also can see where having an integrated GPU might hurt performance, but do you think it makes that much of a difference browsing the web and doing MS Office and straight DVD ripping?

 

[BaronMatrix]

Most people above enumerated the issues here, it is likely

a) you throttled the system at the IO based on your choice of multitasking.
b) you are using a faster single core so the focused apps will appear a little snappier.
c) You friend may not have all the AMD dual core patches installed, the X2's require an MS patch (this may be a gaming patch, not sure as I do not recall) and the AMD dual core patch (oops, I mean optimizer -- this one always made me chuckle).

OF course he may just be unlucky. I went from a single 3200+ 2.2 to a dual 2.2 and THERE IS DEFINITELY A DIFFERENCE IN EVERYTHING.

Also because you were doing apps that like more cache and a better video card, the 4000+ has 1 MB, the total amount on the dual 4200+ and the 7800 will destroy Xpess 200.


To the poster, I would say do this:

Start browser, open several pages with Flash. Start D3/Q4 whatever at highest playable res.

Tell me if dual core isn't faster.

Well honeslty I was trying not to do too many things that would put more load on the GPU, as opposed to the CPU. Playing a game really wouldn't be fair to his system being that it's an integrated card as opposed to my 7800GTX. I also can see where having an integrated GPU might hurt performance, but do you think it makes that much of a difference browsing the web and doing MS Office and straight DVD ripping?

Then you'll never find out. Maybe you can put your chip in his board and vice versa. I'd say put his chip in your board and compare like I said. BECAUSE OF PHYSICS HE WILL WIN.

 

[joefriday]

I think your observations are par for the course. As others have said, the applications you've chosen basically bottlenecked the system through the I/O. Here's a prime example from my own experience:

I sometimes use TMPGenc to deMux mpeg2 captures. It is a single threaded program, so with a dual core cpu, it should be able to run two deMuxs at the same time, right? WRONG. The deMux process is very I/O bottlenecked. It doesn't matter that the cpu has two cores, it's not going to go any faster. In fact, running two instances of TMPGenc's deMux actually makes it take LONGER to finish the task than if each were run separately.

This just brings up the often downplayed fact that not everyone needs a multicore cpu. CPU selection should be based upon what one wants to do with the computer and, more importantly, whether the programs he or she wishes to use are multithreaded in nature. In reality, there are very few instances where a cpu is the only bottleneck in a system task where adding a multicore cpu would produce a tremendous benefit. I'd guess that at least half of all dual core owners don't really use their dual core cpus to their full potential, mainly due to the fact that these people don't use multithreaded apps enough to benefit. I guess there's always bragging rights eh?

 

[DeMonOfElRu]

BECAUSE OF PHYSICS HE WILL WIN.

Nuff said !!

Just common sense really.

 

[CptCpu]

My presscott is now at amazing 5 deggrees C 8O

 

[The_Abyss]

My presscott is now at amazing 5 deggrees C 8O

You took it out of your system and mailed it to Greenland?

 

[lp231]

There is a AMD dual core patch.
It says AMD Dual Core Optimizer

Patch

 

[lordslashstab]

[quote="To the poster, I would say do this:

Start browser, open several pages with Flash. Start D3/Q4 whatever at highest playable res.

Tell me if dual core isn't faster.[/quote]

Oh great! I was hoping for a computer to do flash and gaming! Congratulations on your useless point.

 

[BaronMatrix]

There is a AMD dual core patch.
It says AMD Dual Core Optimizer

Patch

The patch isn't for perf it's fror synchronization without using Windows. Some people have seen speeding up of games making it look like a fast forward.

 

[BaronMatrix]

[quote="To the poster, I would say do this:

Start browser, open several pages with Flash. Start D3/Q4 whatever at highest playable res.

Tell me if dual core isn't faster.

Oh great! I was hoping for a computer to do flash and gaming! Congratulations on your useless point.[/quote]

Ummm, that's the point of dual core. I had a 3200+ and had to close any browser with Flash running to play Q4. When I got my 4400+ I was able to run with several "Flash tabs" open and 12 systray icons with NO slowing during Q4.

 

[440bx]

Sony,

As someone else pointed out, the fact that you have a Raptor makes a much bigger difference than you think.

I did read your post mentioning that the drives on both machines are partitioned similarly but your Raptor makes a big difference when any significant amount of I/O is involved.

For one thing, you have *both* Windows and its pagefile on a much faster drive than the 250GB is. When it comes to system responsiveness, the number hard drives involved, their speed and, I/O balancing will have a more noticeable impact than sheer CPU speed.

The above combined with the possible lack of proper drivers installed, it is not surprising that your single core would *feel* faster than the dual core.

The dual core, with all proper drivers installed and, similarly configured as your single core will be noticeably more responsive and also noticeably faster in most operations.

 

[sony3127]

Sony,

As someone else pointed out, the fact that you have a Raptor makes a much bigger difference than you think.

I did read your post mentioning that the drives on both machines are partitioned similarly but your Raptor makes a big difference when any significant amount of I/O is involved.

For one thing, you have *both* Windows and its pagefile on a much faster drive than the 250GB is. When it comes to system responsiveness, the number hard drives involved, their speed and, I/O balancing will have a more noticeable impact than sheer CPU speed.

Did you not read though that I ONLY put games on my Raptor drive and NOTHING else? therefore it should have really no bearing on the regualr NON-GAME apps that I'm running. My system is setup like so:

80GB C: Drive / Windows XP + Apps + Pagefile on 250GB HD
74GB D: Drive / Games and JUST GAMES installed on the 74GB Raptor
80GB E: Drive / Storage - ripped DVD's, music, ect in on 250GB HD
80GB F: Drive / Backup - holds my Ghost images and backups on 250GB

So, when I'm using the apps that I mentioned earlier in this post I don't think the Raptor really has any bearing on them being that they are not installed on the Raptor, nor is my pagefile on my Raptor. My friend's dual core is basically the same minus the Raptor drive... he just has his games installed on the D: Drive / Games on 250GB HD. So please, I don't think the Raptor has any bearing on this.

 

[DeMonOfElRu]

To the poster, I would say do this:

Start browser, open several pages with Flash. Start D3/Q4 whatever at highest playable res.

Tell me if dual core isn't faster.

Oh great! I was hoping for a computer to do flash and gaming! Congratulations on your useless point.


A bit rude , pal.

If I had a sword with me , I'd do a KuzuRyuSen on your 4$$.

 

[thechristopher]

Just a stab in the dark but if you go into the device manager under processors does it mention dual core?

The XP - hardware abstraction layer needs to be upgraded if it only says AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor.

Older builds of XP need to be patched for this. Drivers should be on the MOBO disk.

 

[WhyFi]

You may want to set an affinity to a specific core for certain apps while multitasking with the dual core.

And I have to say that I really do doubt the sincerity with which you're carrying out these "tests." Didn't you start a thread devoted to the premise that multiple cores (specifically the plans for 4 CPUs and more per rig) were silly and useless?

 

[darkstar782]

My presscott is now at amazing 5 deggrees C 8O

Its still in its retail box and stored in the fridge?

How is that relevent anyway?

 

[TechMan]

To the poster, I would say do this:

Start browser, open several pages with Flash. Start D3/Q4 whatever at highest playable res.

Tell me if dual core isn't faster.

Oh great! I was hoping for a computer to do flash and gaming! Congratulations on your useless point.


A bit rude , pal.

If I had a sword with me , I'd do a KuzuRyuSen on your 4$$.

He should have been more careful crossing swords with one who actually owned a dual-core proc.

 

[FITCamaro]

that multiple cores (specifically the plans for 4 CPUs and more per rig) were silly and useless?

Actually for a normal desktop PC that statement is true in 99% of cases. Unless you're trying to encode more than 4 DVDs at the same time (onto seperate hard drives so the one doesn't die) or something you don't need more than 4 CPU cores. At least not today. Hell the average person barely needs a dual core. Sure games might take advantage of say an 8 core CPU some day. But right now they're barely using dual cores to their potential.