So I tried out a dual core CPU...

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

~Ibrahim~

tbh i bet that is what you were hoping for, your single core reigning supreme.

tell me, do you have the latest cpu driver and have you defragged after installing all that.

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.

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.

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)

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.

Nuff said !!

Just common sense really.

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

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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

How is that relevent anyway?

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.

A 2.2GHz processor with 512KB of L2 cache won't feel as snappy as a 2.4GHz processor with 1MB. Since we generally are watching a single application perform, the scalability of the A64 architecture, which is nothing less than impressive, makes this a fact. If set up properly however, when you are truly multitasking, there will be a significant difference in throughput.

Consider that a 4200 is effectively 2 * 3200. With your 4000, and you're in the middle of a game when suddenly Norton starts its disk scan, your game slowdown can be severe and frustrating. Or how about when you send a large document to your printer and everything seems to come to a stand still.

The 4200, while not as fast per thread, is not succeptible to either of the above slow downs. It just keeps on going. Herein are the benefits of two cores. But the multi-core must be properly recognized my windows. When you open task manager, performance, do you see two cpu usage history windows or just one? You should see two with the 4200. Here are some hints as to how to set your dual core CPU up with Windows.

I went from a 3500 to an Opteron 175 (essentially a 4400) and since both run at 2.2GHz, just like the 4200, I was initially disappointed with the difference in speed, which was at best, negligible. But the more I used it, the more I began to realize the benefits. It took a little bit of time and I effectively had to stop watching for a difference to actually notice the difference. A single application wasn't faster, but when I went about my work, doing lots of things, the slowdowns I was used to just didn't happen when I expected them to. This is the real key and in your case, where one (yours) actually is clocked higher than the 4200, the perception of a lack of improvement will be even greater.

Spend time working on the 4200 for a while. Eventually, you may be able to see the merrits of multi-core processing.

Hmmmm.. Just hard to really say if his friends X2 system is configured properly.

I would guess a simple test to see which system could run more smoother, regardless of hardware.

Something like...

Running Folding@home setting affinity to the 2nd core

And running a game (quake3 demo) window mode with the task manager showing if both cores are being used.

Run the same above on his PC to see which would run smoother, making sure folding@home is set to use 90-100 percent ussage, on his single core system.

Not true, well at least for my P4 system.

I ran Prime95 and played Q3 demo.. and it had some splirting, but was playable.

Then I did it with folding@home. Regardless if I set the the useage down to 20 percent, the game was choppy.

I can only assume it was from the CPU doing writes to the HD.

Not sure what impact it would do on a dual core system though. I'd say you would experience simliar results that I did on a single core.

Edit:

On a side note, you could run the game for say.. and hour to see which machine progressed further in completeing a WU by percent.

perhaps if this sort of situtation was used you would see a benfit.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/cpu/charts.html?modelx=33&model1=240&chart=76&model2=236

No, I didn't read that. It was not stated in your original post. Either I missed the post where you mentioned it or, you posted that information while I was still composing my reply to your original post.

You and your friend are using motherboards based on different chipsets. Specifically, nVidia chipsets are known to have better IDE I/O throughput than ATI chipsets (and VIA as well). Here is a link to a comparison made by Anandtech

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipse [...] =2269&p=12

TTBOMK, nVidia still holds a lead over everyone else in IDE throughput on AMD platforms. That, at least in part, accounts for some of the difference in responsiveness you've perceived.

There's no such thing as a "CPU Driver".

I can tell you one thing..
No computer runs fast with an Antivirus installed...

It could also be that the AV can't handle dual cores properly, making his PC running at like 60% efficiency..

And yes, a raptor drive is a considerable boost to the system.

antivirus scans i have found don't always use all of you cpu. i have run folding@home and an anti virus scan and sometimes it can use 5% of one core and other 40%. true for a single core it migh pose a problem but if my system was slowing down i would just switch off f@H.

just in case anyone knows does any anti virus program make full use of anti-virus. i have zone alarm and AFAIK it doesn't.