Just upgrade to E6400 - not impressed

[minim3]

hello, I manage to (at last) upgrade from a p4@3.0 prescott (the frypan!) to a E6400. This thing runs a whooping -20*C@stock cooling than my 60*C (with artic freezer 4) prescott. Thats very nice indeed. Super-pi 1M is under 28 secs.


......but........ I can't say it is blazing fast in real everyday use. And for the most part, second core is doing nothing. Is it the xp-32bit that don't take advantage of the new cpu or do I have to wait for vista and new versions of all software that would take advantage of 2 cores? CS:S is like +5 fps. (ok there it must be my aging 6800 agp). I never had a dual core b4, I thought I would be impressed, but nope.

 

[Doughbuy]

Eh, what you say is mostly true. Nothing can really handle dual-core proc's right now unless you use certain multi-threaded apps, such as encoding and such. Games aren't CPU limited, more GPU limited, so you're framerates shouldn't change either. Most computers from 3-4 years ago are perfectly fine running word, surfing the web, or using a computer in general.

However, what this dual-core will get you is future use when more multi-threaded apps come out. Also, if you multi-task a lot, then you're bound to see more performance. Try running a virus scan while doing other things, you'll see quicker responses and less hang-ups.

 

[skyguy]

True. Where the dual core CPU's really stretch their legs is in multi-tasking and CPU-intensive apps. I can run multiple high-usage apps, plus encode a DVD in the background, and Windows still runs like butter. My old Barton 2500 XP would puke just thinking about doing a few of those things together

As for your Super-Pi times, if you are into OC'ing, then you can OC the snot out the 6400. You'll get sub-20 sec times NO PROBLEM. If you got good hardware and decent air cooling, you should hit 3.2 ghs without breaking a sweat on the 6400. My 6300 @ stock does 29 sec in Super-Pi 1 million, now @ 3.0 ghz it does 19 and change

 

[minim3]

LOL, no. The E6400 did!

 

[minim3]

Eh, what you say is mostly true. Nothing can really handle dual-core proc's right now unless you use certain multi-threaded apps, such as encoding and such. Games aren't CPU limited, more GPU limited, so you're framerates shouldn't change either. Most computers from 3-4 years ago are perfectly fine running word, surfing the web, or using a computer in general.

However, what this dual-core will get you is future use when more multi-threaded apps come out. Also, if you multi-task a lot, then you're bound to see more performance. Try running a virus scan while doing other things, you'll see quicker responses and less hang-ups.

I would like to know how further down the road would that be? I mean we have dual cores for 2-3 years? (roughly). For everyday use for the likes of us, not professional use. Yet no game manufacturer took that into account when developing a new game these 2 years.Only some video encoding etc. So after vista (jan) all will change? I think not for another 2 years at least. this sucks.....

 

[qrhetoric]

Well, this is not really big news, we all know that very few apps can take advantage of multithreading (audio/video encoding, and the like). Games are not one of them. The advantage of the dual core is that your computer doesn't slow down when it has to do more than one thing at a time. When I installed my new computer, I was putting 2 cd's in at the same time, installing multiple pieces of software at the same time. I never would have considered that with my old comp.

Also, I think you can switch in and out of games more quickly. That certainly is true on mine, but I'm not sure if it's because I went up to 2G of RAM.

Did you reinstall windows? Windows performance degrades over time, so you may want to take this chance to do a fresh install. Also, be sure that both cores are in use... check in the bios. And of course make sure you are using the latest bios (motherboard).

And, you can have a hundred cores and your computer will not speed up if you don't have enough RAM! 1GB is minimum, but you should really get 2GB. That way you know there's plenty of leeway for your computer to do more than one thing at the same time without running to the hard disk.

Bruce

 

[Doughbuy]

Eh, it might suck, but it's life. Developers won't make things if most of the population won't buy it or can't use it, so they have to wait for the hardware to be in place. But look at Alan Wake, the beginning of the trend of multi-threaded games. Valve is also beginning to develop multithreaded games, and Intel is making a push also. I don't say 2 years, I say 1 year for games at the most. Apps, most of them are already multi-threaded, but still, Office, Vista, they all really won't benefit from Dual-core much anyways just because of the nature of their program.

Either way, it's better to have than not to have.

 

[minim3]

I did a clean install of XP, cause I changed m/b along with the cpu.
Both cores work fine, they show at task manager. I'm currently doing a stress test: running 2 instances of superpi and both cores are maxed out, also typing here, listening to winamp radio. Ok i'll admit that my p4 would be crawling right now.

I am planning replacing my gfx and ram, but I can't right now (luck of green papers). So I'm taking it one step at a time. Next upgrade is gonna be at march. So I'm pretty stuck with what I've got in my sig right now.

What I thought is (except the dual core thing) that even 1 core would devastate my p4. kinda 1 vs 1 (lol)! But nope.

 

[raytracer06]

Might be a bit off topic, but did everything go well with your 775 Dual ?

I'd like to upgrade to C2D, while still keeping my DDR and AGP card for a while... and I'd like to be sure this mobo is as interresting as it seems.

 

[minim3]

Might be a bit off topic, but did everything go well with your 775 Dual ?

I'd like to upgrade to C2D, while still keeping my DDR and AGP card for a while... and I'd like to be sure this mobo is as interresting as it seems.

Sure glad to help you. Well it's been rock solid so far. Haven't overclocked yet due to waiting for 200 hours to pass so my artic silver 5 @ stock cooling can be fully functional. I have done all torture tests I can think of. memtest, prime95, superpi, all night playing cs:s. I think it's a great choice for people that can't afford to milk 2000$ for a brand new system. But don't expect to overclock to anything more than ~300fsb. What do you expect from a 56$ m/b? I heard there are some problems with some high end pci-express gfx, but when I'll be able to afford a high end one myself, I'll probably will be getting a new m/b to house my stuff.
there's a very nice thread here: clicky

Anything else you need to ask, feel free to.
So to sum it all up: I def recommend it!

 

[adder1971]

Might be a bit off topic, but did everything go well with your 775 Dual ?

I'd like to upgrade to C2D, while still keeping my DDR and AGP card for a while... and I'd like to be sure this mobo is as interresting as it seems.

ditto, i might do the same thing.

 

[miribus]

You are also hamstringing yourself if you are not at least running XP Pro.

Ultimately thought whether or not you'll see any real benefit any time soon is pretty much the mantra of any newer pc technology. We hear how great DX10 is going to be, and people are already jumping on the 8800 nvidias, but, how many game companies are really going to immediately take advantage of all that DX10 has to offer? What you will see, over the next few months at least, are new games performing very very well under older cards still. And looking as nice, but maybe a few frames (out of 100) worse than something 2x the amount of money.
Then, when finally DX10 optomized software starts showing up, you'll see how pretty it is, but, that very same DX10 card that cost you $450, is now... $300... or there is a better one.
It's a crapshoot. I can say one thing, that dual core processors are becoming so cheap so fast that anyone buying a new system may as well go with a dual-core aware os and a dual core processor, if only for the very near (imo) more broad use of multithreaded programs, i.e. games.
It could be days, weeks, or months, and sure, by then you'll want something better, but that's the risk you take.
I think the next-gen consoles, with their multithreaded processors will help drive PC games to start using that 2nd core to make their stuff more attractive. I think dual core pc games are going to start showing up real soon. Sooner rather than later I hope.
Me? I just bought my first Dual Core proc, an Opty 165 for $105 So, I'm not taking a huge risk, but still something that would, if my theory is correct, have a nice step up over a single core none-the-less.
As someone mentioned before, especially about games, they seem to be more GPU limited anyway, and this is true, have you ever really seen what kind of a difference a cpu makes in a game? For the most part it's pitifully little. A frame, or two, at best for a difference of hundreds of dollars. Which is why you won't ever see me buy anything beyond a midrange cpu, but not a budget one, cache/bus are where it's at and I try to look for the best price-point.

 

[minim3]

You are also hamstringing yourself if you are not at least running XP Pro.

Ultimately thought whether or not you'll see any real benefit any time soon is pretty much the mantra of any newer pc technology. We hear how great DX10 is going to be, and people are already jumping on the 8800 nvidias, but, how many game companies are really going to immediately take advantage of all that DX10 has to offer? What you will see, over the next few months at least, are new games performing very very well under older cards still. And looking as nice, but maybe a few frames (out of 100) worse than something 2x the amount of money.
Then, when finally DX10 optomized software starts showing up, you'll see how pretty it is, but, that very same DX10 card that cost you $450, is now... $300... or there is a better one.
It's a crapshoot. I can say one thing, that dual core processors are becoming so cheap so fast that anyone buying a new system may as well go with a dual-core aware os and a dual core processor, if only for the very near (imo) more broad use of multithreaded programs, i.e. games.
It could be days, weeks, or months, and sure, by then you'll want something better, but that's the risk you take.
I think the next-gen consoles, with their multithreaded processors will help drive PC games to start using that 2nd core to make their stuff more attractive. I think dual core pc games are going to start showing up real soon. Sooner rather than later I hope.
Me? I just bought my first Dual Core proc, an Opty 165 for $105 So, I'm not taking a huge risk, but still something that would, if my theory is correct, have a nice step up over a single core none-the-less.
As someone mentioned before, especially about games, they seem to be more GPU limited anyway, and this is true, have you ever really seen what kind of a difference a cpu makes in a game? For the most part it's pitifully little. A frame, or two, at best for a difference of hundreds of dollars. Which is why you won't ever see me buy anything beyond a midrange cpu, but not a budget one, cache/bus are where it's at and I try to look for the best price-point.

ok, my mistake for forgetting to mention it, I HAVE XP PRO INSTALLED! rolf!
I do the same thing mostly. Skipping enough generations of cpu's and wait for something that is truly worth upgrading. All I've heard about C2D since August is that it RULEZ, period. There's always something better coming some months later and it never ends, but you have to make a choice (upgrading) and hope it's the best. I hope that you are right and we see new software coming up sooner than later that can take full advantage of dual cores.

 

[UC7]

I can't say it is blazing fast in real everyday use. And for the most part, second core is doing nothing. Is it the xp-32bit that don't take advantage of the new cpu or do I have to wait for vista and new versions of all software that would take advantage of 2 cores? CS:S is like +5 fps. (ok there it must be my aging 6800 agp). I never had a dual core b4, I thought I would be impressed, but nope.

You have a good point about the slow movement of today's applications to multiprocessor optimization. I personally find that the money spent for my CPU was worth it. While I may not be able to gain much over a single proc in many tasks, I just love the way that this thing burns through encoding. If you are a genuine multitasker, you will find a lot of improvements in speed with dual procs. If you are someone who focuses upon one application at a time, however, you won't see much of this.
One place in which I also didn't notice a huge gain was gaming. When compared to a friend's late model p4 single proc, the speeds were more dependant on the video card; just as the other poster mentioned above. But, then again, the current generation of games are programmed to be more dependant on the GPU.
The bad news, or good news - for some people, is that the console market is what is pushing game development more than anything else. Now we have the Xbox 360, which has a triple core PowerPC cpu I believe, and the PS3, which has an 8 core (if they all happen to function) IBM cell cpu.
The game programmers are going to have to get creative for cross platform coding. The less that they use the extra cores, the easier it will be for them to make something run the "same way" on each system - at least from what I have read. We will have to wait and see if any of this creative push helps the common PC game development. I read once that there were games being made for the PS3 that use one "cell" just for enemy AI. Interesting concept. I am hoping that all of this turns into something positive for all of us.

 

[bananabox]

So i have a question for you guys. which would be better for gaming, ripping and burning and all around interwebing, an fx-55 at 2.8 stock single core or a dual core opty 165 at 1.8 stock. i probably wont overclock, but i just want to know if i choose the opty will it be slower. i know its dual core but the 2.8 to 1.8 thing is putting me off. since most things dont use dual core should i just stick with the fx-55?

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

CS:S has not yet been updated for dual core, but will be soon. I'm an avid CS:S player (www.clanlod.us) and I can say that your problem is clearly the video card. When you can get a GeForce 8800 for around $300 I would say grab it and make the upgrade. That way you'll have DX10 hardware and you'll be ready for DX10 games (which CS:S is not, but they are evolving it so who knows!).

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

So i have a question for you guys. which would be better for gaming, ripping and burning and all around interwebing, an fx-55 at 2.8 stock single core or a dual core opty 165 at 1.8 stock. i probably wont overclock, but i just want to know if i choose the opty will it be slower. i know its dual core but the 2.8 to 1.8 thing is putting me off. since most things dont use dual core should i just stick with the fx-55?

For Single core gaming, FX-55.

For multi-threaded apps and games, Opty 165. However, I you should pick an Opty that has a price more in line wit the FX-55.

I would guess that any game released in 2007 will more than likely be multi-threaded. So for tomorrow's games you're going to want a dual core.

 

[minim3]

So i have a question for you guys. which would be better for gaming, ripping and burning and all around interwebing, an fx-55 at 2.8 stock single core or a dual core opty 165 at 1.8 stock. i probably wont overclock, but i just want to know if i choose the opty will it be slower. i know its dual core but the 2.8 to 1.8 thing is putting me off. since most things dont use dual core should i just stick with the fx-55?

Foul! off topic!!!

rolf, at least the other guy (raytracer06) was kinda relative with my topic. Well I went from p4 to C2D, so I don't know squat about amd's or how they perform. (I've read about, but haven't own one.) So go make your thread!!

 

[MU_Engineer]

Actually, with the exception of a handful of things like straight video encoding, number-crunching math apps, and perhaps compiling source code, not all that much is CPU limited. Games are generally limited by the rendering power of your GPU if you play at normal (1280x1024+) resolutions and video/photo editing is more limited by RAM size than CPU speed. And the general snappiness of the OS is mostly limited by the HDD speed (boot speed, opening/listing folders and opening apps) and somewhat just the way the OS is designed.

 

[Alyarbank]

Quake4 supports dual-core, so does quake3 although not very well. You'll need to enable it in the config though.
r_usesmp 1

Valve is going multi-threaded too.

 

[minim3]

Quake4 supports dual-core, so does quake3 although not very well. You'll need to enable it in the config though.
r_usesmp 1

It DOES???? thanx for the heads-up!!! I will install it right now!!!!!

 

[jaguarskx]

However, what this dual-core will get you is future use when more multi-threaded apps come out. Also, if you multi-task a lot, then you're bound to see more performance.

Yeah, I play games while encoding a DVD sometimes. Or I simply encode two DVDs at the same time. Dual core only comes in handy when multi-tasking since there are very few games out right now that are multi-threaded. But that is going to change.

Alan Wake is a suspense/thriller game that should be coming out next year. It will have 4 or 5 different threads running at the same time (probably for the AI, graphics, physics, etc.). If that is true then a dual core processor is likely to be the minimum requirement for it.

 

[zjohnr]

I don't say 2 years, I say 1 year for games at the most.

Amen, to that. If the game developers aren't feeling the pressure already, they undoubtedly will as soon as just one multi-threaded game makes it to market and shows a noticeable usage improvement.

Threading is the "next big thing" that will allow them to make their game stand out from all the others. And you only get the a lot of mileage out of a "next big thing" when you're one of the first to have it.

So, yes, 1 year at the most before multi-threaded games start popping up. After that, the pace probably picks up exponentially.

-john

 

[zjohnr]

You are also hamstringing yourself if you are not at least running XP Pro.

Huh :?: :?

I've never heard of there being any performance differences between the different (32-bit) versions of Windows XP. Could you say more about what you meant?

-john

 

[BustedSony]

hello, I manage to (at last) upgrade from a p4@3.0 prescott (the frypan!) to a E6400. This thing runs a whooping -20*C@stock cooling than my 60*C (with artic freezer 4) prescott. Thats very nice indeed. Super-pi 1M is under 28 secs.


......but........ I can't say it is blazing fast in real everyday use.

I happen to run both a P4 530 (3 Ghz) and an E6400. The C2D runs rings around the P4. for instance encoding Mpeg2 is about 22fps using HC encode on the P4, but, ready for this? over 90 FPS on the C2D! Yes having two cores is part of it, but I think that many of your applications are limited by Hard drive access and GPU speed, not the raw power of the CPU itself.

Also I should add that I run Folding@home on both systems. The C2D is 50% faster PER CORE. Since both cores are used on the C2D that makes the C2D a 300% speed boost over the P4. 3 times the points per day..