Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Who needs more cores - I do - no i really do

Last response: in CPUs
Share

In todays development / personal computing environment - how many cores do we really need?

Total: 129 votes

  • Single
  • 7 %
  • dual
  • 46 %
  • quad
  • 26 %
  • multi (think power consumption when voting)
  • 22 %
September 27, 2006 4:16:43 PM

Imagine the following scenario:

I am working on a project that requires frequent rebuilds of several modules (j2ee based) and worse, oracle db rebuilds (build scripts - this one takes 1.5 hours on a P4 2.8 non-ht).

Ideally, I would love to be able to
a) start building the entire project
b) simultaneously start building the db
c) listen to my music
d) surf the company intranet while doing all this

Would 2 cores work here? I dont know, i guess one core will be completely taken up with the project build and the other with the db build and i wont have enough cpu cycles to listen to my music or use firefox.

I haven't been able to test how well it would work on a dual core machine coz my comp is too cheap to give me a dual core machine lol :p  - im contemplating on building my own dual core machine to see whether i can get more done in less time...

any thoughts about this? Does anybody have any experience with using a main stream dual core system like a 4400+ or E6300 doing tasks like what i described?

More about : cores

September 27, 2006 4:26:54 PM

Apart form heavy users and the biggest gaming addicts, quad still seems a bit overkill to me. Single core isn't the way of the past, but more and more they seem to be relegated to budget and energy effecient models. Dual core is the best for the majority of people. It does what it has to do and it works well with your hypothetical situation and anything I might through at mine. For those that are using AutoCAD, Photoshop and encoding something in Divx, there I'd recommend a quad.
Besides that, to me atleast there needs to be more applications optimized for the quads before I jump to Kentsfield or Quaddaddy. Would I get one though? Yep.
They just feel more useful for a server than for home/office/gaming/programming just yet.
DaSick
September 27, 2006 4:40:57 PM

To me it sound like you'd be fine with 2. Listening to music and browsing the internet are hardly cpu intensive if setup properly.

Some tasks are aided by more. I have a 4p 8-core Opty system that I have maxed out all of the cores at once and could probably max out what every number of cores you gave me (non-cluster because the interconnects are slow...).
Related resources
September 27, 2006 4:48:23 PM

I have an E6400 in my HTPC, as well as an E6600 for my main gaming rig.

My HTPC runs almost all the time, except when I put it on standby when I go to bed (it still records in standby). I can have it run live TV in a window, as well as play music, and surf the 'net, but I usually don't do that. I did try playing a DVD and have live TV on at the same time (had to open TV in media center window, and DVD in a seperate window). Ran fine. There was a time when it stuttered a bit, but that was when AV started its scan.

As for your question about multi-cores. I look at it this way...
If a mutli-core (more than 4) costs just as much as a mid-range CPU does today, then even if it's overkill, I would get one. To me, it's not so much processor power as much as it's how much processor power can I get for the price.
September 27, 2006 5:19:00 PM

Quote:
I have an E6400 in my HTPC, as well as an E6600 for my main gaming rig.

...[editted]

As for your question about multi-cores. I look at it this way...
If a mutli-core (more than 4) costs just as much as a mid-range CPU does today, then even if it's overkill, I would get one. To me, it's not so much processor power as much as it's how much processor power can I get for the price.


But would you consider energy consumption in this equation as well?
September 27, 2006 5:35:00 PM

Depends on where you are, and what you're using. In a office, using a laptop, in a HTPC?
September 27, 2006 6:37:13 PM

Quote:
I have an E6400 in my HTPC, as well as an E6600 for my main gaming rig.

...[editted]

As for your question about multi-cores. I look at it this way...
If a mutli-core (more than 4) costs just as much as a mid-range CPU does today, then even if it's overkill, I would get one. To me, it's not so much processor power as much as it's how much processor power can I get for the price.


But would you consider energy consumption in this equation as well?

Power consumption is something I would consider if my power bill was enormous. Right now, I use more in my AC than in my CPU. So, no, I wouldn't really care about power consumption, unless it was a laptop or portable system. Or, if I was running a server farm or something with more than 4 systems running.

I have 1 HTPC on most of the day, and 1 gaming rig, which isn't on all the time, so power usage isn't a concern.

If you're asking if multi-cores would create more demand in power, then I would consider it, especially if I needed a 1kW PSU to run just the CPU, and not the whole system.
September 27, 2006 6:46:23 PM

Quote:
I use more in my AC than in my CPU


Imagine if these things where related??
September 27, 2006 6:51:21 PM

Quote:


..Editted

If you're asking if multi-cores would create more demand in power, then I would consider it, especially if I needed a 1kW PSU to run just the CPU, and not the whole system.


That's exactly my concern right now. the industry seems to be moving towards higher and higher power consumption levels. Agreed that intel came around with an awesome performance to power consumption ratio with their new core2duo line, but then again, with the introduction of the quad based versions, we have edged pretty high in the power consumption scale. Given the performance/power ratio might have remained the same (adding more cores consumes more power), however isn't it becoming a concern to the industry that 800+ Watt power supplies are becoming normal in the ultra high end? (Multi GPU solutions are to blame too).

To sum it up, I'm a little concerned that in the quest for higher performance, the ultra high end systems in the not too distant future might consume as much power as an A/C (ok thats over dramatization but u get the point) ;) 
September 27, 2006 6:52:52 PM

Quote:
I use more in my AC than in my CPU


Imagine if these things where related??

You would think, but being in the high desert of New Mexico, it's always kind of warm in the summer/early fall.

My house uses refrigerated air for cooling, so it's not constantly on, but I am assuming that just turning it on uses more AC than my computer, since it runs both the AC and fan.

But when I was running my 840EE, you could feel it in my computer room, slowly heating up the room.
September 27, 2006 10:58:03 PM

Quote:
Agreed that intel came around with an awesome performance to power consumption ratio with their new core2duo line, but then again, with the introduction of the quad based versions, we have edged pretty high in the power consumption scale. Given the performance/power ratio might have remained the same (adding more cores consumes more power), however isn't it becoming a concern to the industry that 800+ Watt power supplies are becoming normal in the ultra high end?

Aren’t the mainstream Server Quad CPUs supposed to have a TDP of 80W, which gives them a much better performance per watt than the current dual core Woodcrest chips! Quad 2.33 GHz at 80W versus Dual 3 GHz at 80W.
September 28, 2006 7:31:36 AM

It falls on one thing. It depends on what you use the computers for

1 quad cores will not run games yet.
2 Theres only a few games that run Dual core cpus.
3 The power is another view we need to look at.
September 28, 2006 8:26:23 AM

I honestly believe, two cores at most in today's environment.

In future, four cores max. You start getting less benefit from more cores, even with multi threading when you realize that most of the cores do no work at all. After all there is a limit to how many thinks a person can do interactively.

In your case you may benefit from more cores, maybe more in the future as compilers and debuggers and such start to optimized for multi-core environments.

As for general users, four cores max IMHO, even everyday CPU intensive tasks like compression and decompression, makes little difference between say 1 minute or 30 seconds.

I think the multi-core architechture is "cheating" to get more performance when we should be looking at newer and better technology.
September 28, 2006 9:00:56 AM

I think dual core is fine for most people, but for Video/Rendering type apps bring on the SMP Quad cores baby. :D 
HD Video editing of H.264 footage is very CPU intensive and scales well, so the more cores the merrier.
In terms of power consumption, once 45nm is released Quad cores should be attractive.
September 28, 2006 10:26:25 AM

Personally I'd be much happier with a single core at 8GHz, but since that is not likely to happen with the current architectures, then I say gimme as many cores as I can afford, but gimme the software that takes advantage of it too! No point having expensive cores sitting there idling all day.
September 28, 2006 11:35:07 AM

Quote:
Imagine the following scenario:

I am working on a project that requires frequent rebuilds of several modules (j2ee based) and worse, oracle db rebuilds (build scripts - this one takes 1.5 hours on a P4 2.8 non-ht).


Just curious - what is Oracle db rebuild? (I ask because I have been developing oracle/c++ apps for last 7 years :) 
September 28, 2006 11:49:34 AM

Quote:
Imagine the following scenario:

I am working on a project that requires frequent rebuilds of several modules (j2ee based) and worse, oracle db rebuilds (build scripts - this one takes 1.5 hours on a P4 2.8 non-ht).

Ideally, I would love to be able to
a) start building the entire project
b) simultaneously start building the db
c) listen to my music
d) surf the company intranet while doing all this

Would 2 cores work here? I dont know, i guess one core will be completely taken up with the project build and the other with the db build and i wont have enough cpu cycles to listen to my music or use firefox.

I haven't been able to test how well it would work on a dual core machine coz my comp is too cheap to give me a dual core machine lol :p  - im contemplating on building my own dual core machine to see whether i can get more done in less time...

any thoughts about this? Does anybody have any experience with using a main stream dual core system like a 4400+ or E6300 doing tasks like what i described?



I use a 4400+ for dev work and gaming and it's great. 4x4 is my next purchase. I would get Kentsfield but I like AMD. Dell has Dimensions with 4200+ - 5000+ for $500 with 17" monitor. Your builds will speed up tremendously as AMD does compile faster than NetBust.
September 28, 2006 12:35:06 PM

C'mon Baron, where is this guy making reference that he's going to purchase a netburst-based cpu? He already have one and just wants to upgreade to better tech. He is clearly asking for advice between the X2 or Core2...Not that the advice you're giving to muharizj is bad, I acknowledge that any X2+ cpu is a great performer...Not meant at you to start flaming or anything, but I can understand why some members just start flaming your arse! :evil: 

You and I both know that a Core2 will compile code, will run programs and games faster. It's nice to see you around, it's been like more than 2 days since the last post I saw coming from you, just to see this post coming from you. Please man, don't make me hate you like some other members do.

Peace

Edit: Well, I didn't mean to hate you like in hating someone...but you do get the point, right? :roll:
a b à CPUs
September 28, 2006 12:44:13 PM

Well, an average day in the office for me is:
Converting multiple word, excel, or whatever files to PDF, while at the same time running Quark, Illustrator, Photoshop, Indesign, AND Pagemaker, highres scanning, answering emails, and ripping files to print to 5 high speed network Docutechs and a Kodak Nexpress locally, and moving files to/and from in excess of 1 gig each to multiple network storage systems all over the world, all at the same time- in an on demand environment. Everthing must happen RIGHT NOW.
I will take as many cores and as much system memory as I can get please.
a c 96 à CPUs
September 28, 2006 1:13:30 PM

For your usages, here's what would work the best:

1. Start building the entire project (j2ee based):
I've not used the Java compiler but compiling C and C++ can be extremely parallelizable. This is dependent on the code itself to some extent, but in my experience the compiler very rarely spits out less than the 4 threads I limit it to. So more cores generally = more speed as long as the HDD can keep up.

2. Simultaneously start building the db:
Well, on top of compiling you'll need at least a core here too. Not to mention a lot of HDD I/O capacity as well. If your HDD cannot keep the CPU cores fed, then speed will not go up any.

3. Listen to my music:
Takes very little CPU. If you are playing music off of your hard drive, you want to have the music files sit on a separate hard drive than the one(s) being used for the compiling and db work as otherwise the I/O contention will lead to skipping and stuttering in playback.

4. Surf the company intranet while doing all of this:
Again, very little CPU. Even with all cores pretty much running at 100%, if your OS is worth a damn and you have enough RAM, you should be able to surf Web pages just fine.

So in your case, something like an upcoming dual-processor quad-core workstation with a FAST disk array would do you well. If you want something today, a dual Opteron 22x0 or even a dual Woodcrest 51x0 workstation* would work well. Just make sure to have plenty of HDD speed to work with.

*The Woodcrest chips are good, especially the ones with the 1333 MHz FSBs. But the boards they run on use FB-DIMM and that's expensive, slow, hot, and the speed drops as you add more modules. That's why I'd recommend a dual Socket F Opteron setup as it uses regular ECC buffered DDR2. FB-DIMM will probably improve in the future to the point of decent usability as speeds go up and latencies go down, but for now it's the Rambus of the RAM world- expensive, slow, and Intel is trying to push it. So unless Intel (or NVIDIA or ATI or anybody else) comes out with a dual socket 771 Woodcrest chipset that uses regular ECC buffered DDR2, I'd not recommend it.
September 28, 2006 1:43:18 PM

Quote:
C'mon Baron, where is this guy making reference that he's going to purchase a netburst-based cpu? He already have one and just wants to upgreade to better tech. He is clearly asking for advice between the X2 or Core2...Not that the advice you're giving to muharizj is bad, I acknowledge that any X2+ cpu is a great performer...Not meant at you to start flaming or anything, but I can understand why some members just start flaming your arse! :evil: 

You and I both know that a Core2 will compile code, will run programs and games faster. It's nice to see you around, it's been like more than 2 days since the last post I saw coming from you, just to see this post coming from you. Please man, don't make me hate you like some other members do.

Peace

Edit: Well, I didn't mean to hate you like in hating someone...but you do get the point, right? :roll:



Back to your hole a-hole. he said he currently


HAS a P4.


This is what happens when you just look for things to bi45h about. Even Core 2 is just catching up to X2 at compiling.
September 28, 2006 1:57:44 PM

Quote:
Imagine the following scenario:

I am working on a project that requires frequent rebuilds of several modules (j2ee based) and worse, oracle db rebuilds (build scripts - this one takes 1.5 hours on a P4 2.8 non-ht).


Just curious - what is Oracle db rebuild? (I ask because I have been developing oracle/c++ apps for last 7 years :) 

I'm sorry, what i meant was running the Build Scripts for an Oracle db, the build takes a very very long time because one of the table spaces is a very large universal vocab system the rest of the app uses - the last time i timed it on my P4 2.8 ghz machine with 2.5GB of ram, it took over 1.5 hours.
September 28, 2006 2:05:55 PM

Quote:
I'm sorry, what i meant was running the Build Scripts for an Oracle db, the build takes a very very long time because one of the table spaces is a very large universal vocab system the rest of the app uses - the last time i timed it on my P4 2.8 ghz machine with 2.5GB of ram, it took over 1.5 hours.


What build are you doing? An index, creating a new table?

My guess is that processor is not your issue, but disk I/O.
September 28, 2006 2:10:42 PM

Quote:


... [Editted]

I use a 4400+ for dev work and gaming and it's great. 4x4 is my next purchase. I would get Kentsfield but I like AMD. Dell has Dimensions with 4200+ - 5000+ for $500 with 17" monitor. Your builds will speed up tremendously as AMD does compile faster than NetBust.


Hey Barron, I read the last post you made as well, thanks for the responses. I noticed your comment about core2's just catching up2 x2's in compiling etc. Are there any benchmarks that might compare core2 architecture to X2 in relation to compiling. If so, do you know what type of compiler they were using? I have a strong feeling that the standard javac compiler we use is not very parallelizable as some C/C++ compilers available. But that's besides the point, it'llbe really great if you can post any benchmark sites relevant to compiling :)  thanx again.

btw - i'll never ever get another netburst based system again (sometimes i feel that my old athlon @ home is faster than this 2.8ghz machine @ work :(  - maybe its the HDD).
September 28, 2006 2:14:00 PM

Quote:


[...] Even Core 2 is just catching up to X2 at compiling.


LOL...OK! If you say so.
September 28, 2006 2:16:11 PM

Quote:


... [Editted]

I use a 4400+ for dev work and gaming and it's great. 4x4 is my next purchase. I would get Kentsfield but I like AMD. Dell has Dimensions with 4200+ - 5000+ for $500 with 17" monitor. Your builds will speed up tremendously as AMD does compile faster than NetBust.


Hey Barron, I read the last post you made as well, thanks for the responses. I noticed your comment about core2's just catching up2 x2's in compiling etc. Are there any benchmarks that might compare core2 architecture to X2 in relation to compiling. If so, do you know what type of compiler they were using? I have a strong feeling that the standard javac compiler we use is not very parallelizable as some C/C++ compilers available. But that's besides the point, it'llbe really great if you can post any benchmark sites relevant to compiling :)  thanx again.

btw - i'll never ever get another netburst based system again (sometimes i feel that my old athlon @ home is faster than this 2.8ghz machine @ work :(  - maybe its the HDD).

I doubt that he will provide you with such information, but let's give Baron the benefit of the doubt. I will do a search as well, as I can't denied his claims without having proof about it.
September 28, 2006 2:16:23 PM

Quote:
I'm sorry, what i meant was running the Build Scripts for an Oracle db, the build takes a very very long time because one of the table spaces is a very large universal vocab system the rest of the app uses - the last time i timed it on my P4 2.8 ghz machine with 2.5GB of ram, it took over 1.5 hours.


What build are you doing? An index, creating a new table?

My guess is that processor is not your issue, but disk I/O.

I've run a system resource monitor and cpu load is @ 90-100% (oracle) and disk use is very very high too. I'm not too familiar with actual db itself other than knowing its a very very large vocabulary the rest of the system uses.
I'll repost or edit this post once i get more info on the internals of that portion of the build (i'm avoiding it like the plague).

The script first creates the user, builds the tables and creates indexes.
September 28, 2006 2:29:59 PM

Quote:
word, excel, Quark, Illustrator, Photoshop, Indesign, AND Pagemaker... I will take as many cores and as much system memory as I can get please.


I have a question. I know Photoshop can eat all the RAM and cores you feed it under Vista. Apparently there is a TB RAM limit and a few dozen core limit. Don't think that's gonna be hit anytime soon. But what about the others? I use all of those except Quark (makes me ill just to look at it... I was a PageMaker v1.0 BETA tester!) and I'm pretty sure that the MS Office stuff is singlethreaded and maybe the other Adobe non-Photoshop things too. Am I right, wrong, crazy, wot? :) 
September 28, 2006 2:55:33 PM

For today, Dual is plenty. In five years, Quad will still be fine until app's catch up with that. And that's it for me, due to energy costs. I don't want to have an argon cooling system at home for anything more than that. ComEd just broke free in Illinois and our electric costs are jumping up 22% to 55%. Before the energy difference between CRT and LCD wasn't critical, but it has become so. Our PC use to run 24x7 but now we shut it down at night. For 95% of home users the top end dual cores right now are way more powerful than anyone needs. Would I like to have a Hemi in my car? Sure, but I won't pay for it either upfront or in gas costs.
September 28, 2006 3:10:54 PM

I can certainly sympathize with the energy cost worries. Where I am right now, the cost per Kw is more than double the highest public rate in the USA. (You can forget downloading all night...) The thing is I'm sick and tired of having to sell my old PC for a couple of hundred bucks every 18 months and transfer everything to a new one. I figure that if I get on the C2Q bandwagon in Spring or Summer 07, get state-of-the-art everything, I should still be able to have something useful 3 or 4 years down the road.
September 28, 2006 3:12:06 PM

Double post. Deleted. Sorry.
September 28, 2006 3:20:13 PM

Quote:

I've not used the Java compiler but compiling C and C++ can be extremely parallelizable. This is dependent on the code itself to some extent, but in my experience the compiler very rarely spits out less than the 4 threads I limit it to. So more cores generally = more speed as long as the HDD can keep up.


Depends. With some advanced compiling technology like precompiled header or U++ BLITZ and fast compiler like MSC7.1, the difference going from 1 to 2 cores for full project rebuild is IME 50%.

The problem is that while you can easily run as many compilers as you have cores, at the end of process you have to link - and that is impossible to paralelize and takes quite a lot of time too.
September 28, 2006 3:27:02 PM

Quote:
I'm sorry, what i meant was running the Build Scripts for an Oracle db, the build takes a very very long time because one of the table spaces is a very large universal vocab system the rest of the app uses - the last time i timed it on my P4 2.8 ghz machine with 2.5GB of ram, it took over 1.5 hours.


What build are you doing? An index, creating a new table?

My guess is that processor is not your issue, but disk I/O.

I've run a system resource monitor and cpu load is @ 90-100% (oracle) and disk use is very very high too. I'm not too familiar with actual db itself other than knowing its a very very large vocabulary the rest of the system uses.
I'll repost or edit this post once i get more info on the internals of that portion of the build (i'm avoiding it like the plague).

The script first creates the user, builds the tables and creates indexes.

How many tables? 1.5 hour is quite a lot...
September 28, 2006 3:31:23 PM

Quote:
Even Core 2 is just catching up to X2 at compiling.


Flames and fanboism aside, do you have a link to any benchmark comparing C++ compilation speed of Core2 and AMD64? This topic is very important for me as well and I have failed to spot any...
September 28, 2006 3:36:28 PM

Quote:
Quote:
...do you have a link to any benchmark comparing C++ compilation speed of Core2 and AMD64? This topic is very important for me as well and I have failed to spot any...


What about that new power-based benchmark Intel's announced (today's THG News)? Would that do it?
September 28, 2006 5:54:39 PM

Quote:


... [Editted]

I use a 4400+ for dev work and gaming and it's great. 4x4 is my next purchase. I would get Kentsfield but I like AMD. Dell has Dimensions with 4200+ - 5000+ for $500 with 17" monitor. Your builds will speed up tremendously as AMD does compile faster than NetBust.


Hey Barron, I read the last post you made as well, thanks for the responses. I noticed your comment about core2's just catching up2 x2's in compiling etc. Are there any benchmarks that might compare core2 architecture to X2 in relation to compiling. If so, do you know what type of compiler they were using? I have a strong feeling that the standard javac compiler we use is not very parallelizable as some C/C++ compilers available. But that's besides the point, it'llbe really great if you can post any benchmark sites relevant to compiling :)  thanx again.

btw - i'll never ever get another netburst based system again (sometimes i feel that my old athlon @ home is faster than this 2.8ghz machine @ work :(  - maybe its the HDD).


I'm kind of busy but here are some with P4 and X2.

Linkage!

Linkage!

All reviews used to do compile tests. I'm searching AnandTech and a few other places.
September 28, 2006 6:09:18 PM

Quote:


... [Editted]

I use a 4400+ for dev work and gaming and it's great. 4x4 is my next purchase. I would get Kentsfield but I like AMD. Dell has Dimensions with 4200+ - 5000+ for $500 with 17" monitor. Your builds will speed up tremendously as AMD does compile faster than NetBust.


Hey Barron, I read the last post you made as well, thanks for the responses. I noticed your comment about core2's just catching up2 x2's in compiling etc. Are there any benchmarks that might compare core2 architecture to X2 in relation to compiling. If so, do you know what type of compiler they were using? I have a strong feeling that the standard javac compiler we use is not very parallelizable as some C/C++ compilers available. But that's besides the point, it'llbe really great if you can post any benchmark sites relevant to compiling :)  thanx again.

btw - i'll never ever get another netburst based system again (sometimes i feel that my old athlon @ home is faster than this 2.8ghz machine @ work :(  - maybe its the HDD).

I doubt that he will provide you with such information, but let's give Baron the benefit of the doubt. I will do a search as well, as I can't denied his claims without having proof about it.


jealous much?
September 28, 2006 6:13:59 PM

Quote:
Even Core 2 is just catching up to X2 at compiling.


Flames and fanboism aside, do you have a link to any benchmark comparing C++ compilation speed of Core2 and AMD64? This topic is very important for me as well and I have failed to spot any...


Here is a link with lots of scores for CPUs

Linkage!


You'll excuse me if I don't hang around.
September 28, 2006 6:35:25 PM

Quote:
Even Core 2 is just catching up to X2 at compiling.


Flames and fanboism aside, do you have a link to any benchmark comparing C++ compilation speed of Core2 and AMD64? This topic is very important for me as well and I have failed to spot any...


Here is a link with lots of scores for CPUs

Linkage!


You'll excuse me if I don't hang around.
Hmm?
I see a Pentium IV 2400 at the top of the chart.. :?
And it's a pretty outdated comparison, there are at best Northwoods and XPs there..
September 28, 2006 6:37:25 PM

Quote:


... [Editted]

I use a 4400+ for dev work and gaming and it's great. 4x4 is my next purchase. I would get Kentsfield but I like AMD. Dell has Dimensions with 4200+ - 5000+ for $500 with 17" monitor. Your builds will speed up tremendously as AMD does compile faster than NetBust.


Hey Barron, I read the last post you made as well, thanks for the responses. I noticed your comment about core2's just catching up2 x2's in compiling etc. Are there any benchmarks that might compare core2 architecture to X2 in relation to compiling. If so, do you know what type of compiler they were using? I have a strong feeling that the standard javac compiler we use is not very parallelizable as some C/C++ compilers available. But that's besides the point, it'llbe really great if you can post any benchmark sites relevant to compiling :)  thanx again.

btw - i'll never ever get another netburst based system again (sometimes i feel that my old athlon @ home is faster than this 2.8ghz machine @ work :(  - maybe its the HDD).


I'm kind of busy but here are some with P4 and X2.

Linkage!

Linkage!

All reviews used to do compile tests. I'm searching AnandTech and a few other places.
Hey, but people was asking for benchmarks of X2s VS C2Ds, not PIVs!
September 28, 2006 7:24:26 PM

Quote:


... [Editted]

I use a 4400+ for dev work and gaming and it's great. 4x4 is my next purchase. I would get Kentsfield but I like AMD. Dell has Dimensions with 4200+ - 5000+ for $500 with 17" monitor. Your builds will speed up tremendously as AMD does compile faster than NetBust.


Hey Barron, I read the last post you made as well, thanks for the responses. I noticed your comment about core2's just catching up2 x2's in compiling etc. Are there any benchmarks that might compare core2 architecture to X2 in relation to compiling. If so, do you know what type of compiler they were using? I have a strong feeling that the standard javac compiler we use is not very parallelizable as some C/C++ compilers available. But that's besides the point, it'llbe really great if you can post any benchmark sites relevant to compiling :)  thanx again.

btw - i'll never ever get another netburst based system again (sometimes i feel that my old athlon @ home is faster than this 2.8ghz machine @ work :(  - maybe its the HDD).


I'm kind of busy but here are some with P4 and X2.

Linkage!

Linkage!

All reviews used to do compile tests. I'm searching AnandTech and a few other places.
Hey, but people was asking for benchmarks of X2s VS C2Ds, not PIVs!


I don't work for them. I gave what I found. Search for yourself if that's not good enough.
September 28, 2006 8:01:34 PM

Quote:


... [Editted]

I use a 4400+ for dev work and gaming and it's great. 4x4 is my next purchase. I would get Kentsfield but I like AMD. Dell has Dimensions with 4200+ - 5000+ for $500 with 17" monitor. Your builds will speed up tremendously as AMD does compile faster than NetBust.


Hey Barron, I read the last post you made as well, thanks for the responses. I noticed your comment about core2's just catching up2 x2's in compiling etc. Are there any benchmarks that might compare core2 architecture to X2 in relation to compiling. If so, do you know what type of compiler they were using? I have a strong feeling that the standard javac compiler we use is not very parallelizable as some C/C++ compilers available. But that's besides the point, it'llbe really great if you can post any benchmark sites relevant to compiling :)  thanx again.

btw - i'll never ever get another netburst based system again (sometimes i feel that my old athlon @ home is faster than this 2.8ghz machine @ work :(  - maybe its the HDD).


I'm kind of busy but here are some with P4 and X2.

Linkage!

Linkage!

All reviews used to do compile tests. I'm searching AnandTech and a few other places.
Hey, but people was asking for benchmarks of X2s VS C2Ds, not PIVs!


I don't work for them. I gave what I found. Search for yourself if that's not good enough.Typical...He shoots his mouth off, and doesn't provide proof. Oh yeah, he's a DEV...so we should believe him. :roll:
September 28, 2006 8:04:54 PM

Quote:


I don't work for them. I gave what I found. Search for yourself if that's not good enough.


This is the reason why some members don't think about it twice about flaming your **** arse! :evil: 

How come your going to post some USELESS, OUTDATED data to support your claims that Core2 is "just catching up with A64 X2 [in compiling applications]." I don't like to see a flamewar over this, as there really is nothing to flame about, but your answers and the LACK of modesty you show when posting your own opinions is what makes your posts worthless in the eyes of the majority of the forum.

I'm not saying your argument false, in fact I agree with you in that A64s are a hell of cpu performers. And by the way, I was just teasing you this morning with the comment I made. But this time around, I'm not teasing you; so mock my words!
September 28, 2006 8:11:12 PM

Quote:




I don't work for them. I gave what I found. Search for yourself if that's not good enough.
Typical...He shoots his mouth off, and doesn't provide proof. Oh yeah, he's a DEV...so we should believe him. :roll:

I second you!
September 28, 2006 8:25:47 PM

I am astonished at all of you. Right now the fastest rig you can buy is a Tyan 2895 a Opteron 285 and one of these. http://www.drccomputer.com/ Read the IEEE abstract here and you will understand why Quad core is at best a generation out of date. If you want the paper and are not an IEEE memeber email me with your email address and I will send you the PDF of the full paper. By the way no IMC means no Reconfigurable Data Cache. http://csdl2.computer.org/persagen/DLAbsToc.jsp?resourc...
Then read this about Roadrunner. Roadrunner will be a 1.6 peatflop computer with only 6000 (60%) more cores than the top Intel supercomputer but will be 40 times faster in 64 bit processing (25 times if adjusted for the number of cores).
"The Roadrunner system, along with the Protein Explorer and the seventh-fastest supercomputer, Tokyo Institute of Technology's Tsubame system built by Sun Microsystems (SC Online READERS' CHOICE PRODUCT OF 2005: Sun Microsystems Sun Fire servers), illustrate a new trend in supercomputing: combining general-purpose processors with special-purpose accelerator chips"

"On average, Cell is eight times faster and at least eight times more power-efficient than current Opteron and Itanium processors, despite the fact that Cell's peak double-precision performance is fourteen times slower than its peak single-precision performance. If Cell were to include at least one fully usable pipelined double-precision floating-point unit, as proposed in the Cell+ implementation, these performance advantages would easily double."
http://www.supercomputingonline.com/article.php?sid=118...

The optimal design is not multiple cores but multiple accelerators controled by a CPU. Opteron 2xx can control 1 and 8xx can control 2. Depending on the application a 8xx Opteron will be between 10 (64 bit)and 30 times (32 bit) as fast as the fastest chip you can buy today which is IBM's Power 6. Not Core 2. The Tyan design is already in use to upgrade Gauss to accomodate the expansion of Blue Gene L from 380 teraflops to 1 petaflop. Just replace one 252 with the accelerator chip five times the speed.
http://www.llnl.gov/pao/news/news_releases/2005/NR-05-1...

The logical answer is you DON'T need more cores you just need an accelerator chip or two. As IBM says about Roadrunner it is off the shelf tech and available for the desktop. Beep! Beep!
September 28, 2006 8:31:04 PM

To give you an idea of what yet another user's dual core can do:
I routinely:
*play World of Warcraft
*listen to music via Winamp
*use Skype Video Chat (on the second monitor)
*browse the web using Firefox with multiple tabs open (10+ usually)
*chat on AOL Instant Messenger
*rip two DVD's at once using DVD Shrink 3.2, and then burn them as well (automated)
*download 5~ torrents using Azureus Bittorrent client

Does it slow down? Occasionally, but not very often really. Would I get a quad core? Yeah. I am a hard core gamer, and most games only use 2 cores max to date; but for the amount of multitasking I do constantly, it'd be worth it to speed up even more - assure constant smooth response... all that jazz.

If you multitask a lot, which it sounds like you do, I'd say go for at least a dual core. Maybe even save up and find a quad core. If nothing else, Windoze will find something for the other cores to do, and it won't hurt your performance.
September 28, 2006 8:35:31 PM

OK, but we're not talking about supercomputers now; it's just common users and IMO, a dual core design (AMD X2, Intel C2D or even 9xx series) fulfills the needs of such user for a smooth experience. (and of course is pretty affordable)
September 28, 2006 9:01:49 PM

Quote:
To give you an idea of what yet another user's dual core can do:
I routinely:
*play World of Warcraft
*listen to music via Winamp
*use Skype Video Chat (on the second monitor)
*browse the web using Firefox with multiple tabs open (10+ usually)
*chat on AOL Instant Messenger
*rip two DVD's at once using DVD Shrink 3.2, and then burn them as well (automated)
*download 5~ torrents using Azureus Bittorrent client


The only things I see in that list that may benefit from dual core would be the game and ripping two DVDs at once. Firefox, no matter how many tabs you have open, isn't going to consume that much CPU, unless there's some Java or other heavy scripting on a page that is running. AIM, WinAmp, and BitTorrent could run on a Pentium 3 with no issue. I have no idea how much CPU Skype uses, but I'd be willing to guess that it is < 5%.

I usually have several applications open at the same time on my 1.6 Pentium M and have no issues with slow down either. Now, I'm not saying that having dual core isn't a nice thing to have, but for the average user (doing all that you have listed plus a little gaming), HT was more than enough.

Of course, Vista may change all of this.
September 28, 2006 11:50:38 PM

Quote:


... [Editted]

I use a 4400+ for dev work and gaming and it's great. 4x4 is my next purchase. I would get Kentsfield but I like AMD. Dell has Dimensions with 4200+ - 5000+ for $500 with 17" monitor. Your builds will speed up tremendously as AMD does compile faster than NetBust.


Hey Barron, I read the last post you made as well, thanks for the responses. I noticed your comment about core2's just catching up2 x2's in compiling etc. Are there any benchmarks that might compare core2 architecture to X2 in relation to compiling. If so, do you know what type of compiler they were using? I have a strong feeling that the standard javac compiler we use is not very parallelizable as some C/C++ compilers available. But that's besides the point, it'llbe really great if you can post any benchmark sites relevant to compiling :)  thanx again.

btw - i'll never ever get another netburst based system again (sometimes i feel that my old athlon @ home is faster than this 2.8ghz machine @ work :(  - maybe its the HDD).


I'm kind of busy but here are some with P4 and X2.

Linkage!

Linkage!

All reviews used to do compile tests. I'm searching AnandTech and a few other places.
Hey, but people was asking for benchmarks of X2s VS C2Ds, not PIVs!


I don't work for them. I gave what I found. Search for yourself if that's not good enough.Typical...He shoots his mouth off, and doesn't provide proof. Oh yeah, he's a DEV...so we should believe him. :roll:

Actually I'm a janitor.
September 28, 2006 11:52:16 PM

Quote:
Typical...He shoots his mouth off, and doesn't provide proof. Oh yeah, he's a DEV...so we should believe him.



Actually I'm a janitor.


At least according to poular idiot opinion. Or perhaps it's an attempt on their part to feel superior. Funny how I don't think I am.
!