I'm interested in getting thoughts on the dual core vs. single CPU debate.
If you were building or buying a new system, which one would you choose to go with at this point in time?
As for me, I think the dual core CPU's are great but as far as my computer usage goes I don't really have a need for dual processors. I don't have any games that would take advantage of them and I usually don't multitask to a great degree or run heavy duty applications that would need dual processors. So at this point in time I would get as high performance a single core CPU as I could afford.
I think I would go with dual core though if I thought that game publishers would be releasing games that would be multi-threaded in the next year or so. If that were the case then the games would be able to utilize two processors and it would make more sense to me to go with a dual core.
That's just me though. What does everyone else think?
Though I have a dual-processor setup... it's only because I do need it (media-editing)... I have to agree with you about the single CPU statement for those that don't need the horsepower.
So far there are no pc games that take advantage of it, it's highly expensive, and if you don't multi-task... your system is sitting idle half the time... why waste the money? ;)
Single core systems can get the job done right for most, if not all of any 'basic' and advanced needs... and with enough RAM and page file, multi-tasking is no sweat...
Save your pennies and only buy a system for what you intend to do with it, not what you "might" do with it. You'll be upgrading in a couple of years anyways.. so don't burn your bank account getting the latest 'toy'...
That's my advice :)
Oh yeah, and although I'm a die-hard AMD fan/user... ppl can take advantage of a Pentium 4's "Hyper-Threading" chips to basically simulate a dual-core system. I personally choose AMD for it's current and past performance, so please don't take this as a AMD vs Pentium knock. Let's stay on topic before starting another "battle" hehehe ;)
So ChAiNz, do you have use AMD dual-core or do you have two AMD processors?
I've been researching the AMD dual-core processors. I see mention of the term CPU affinity which I guess needs to be set for certain apps that don't know or have problems dealing with multiple processors? I'm trying to figure out what that is all about.
So ChAiNz, do you have use AMD dual-core or do you have two AMD processors?
I've been researching the AMD dual-core processors. I see mention of the term CPU affinity which I guess needs to be set for certain apps that don't know or have problems dealing with multiple processors? I'm trying to figure out what that is all about.
Dual processors... in both my PC and MAC :)
My System(s) (
http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=1686561&postcount=53) from this thread:
http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=132052)
As for CPU Affinity, it's never been a 'problem' topic unless you're using it for binding purposes (processes bound to isolated (subset) of the CPUs)... most systems now will at least 'recognize' that there's 2 processors to use.. and in turn, use them appropriately.
Are you using WinXP or Linux/Unix? Subtle differences on setting it up (obviously) but if you're interested in a dual-processor system, don't let the term alone scare you off... it's "technical jargon" that most users won't ever confront until something is done to make the system screw up :xp:
Oh yeah, and although I'm a die-hard AMD fan/user... ppl can take advantage of a Pentium 4's "Hyper-Threading" chips to basically simulate a dual-core system.
The Intel HT processors do this very, very well! :D :xp:
The Intel HT processors do this very, very well! :D :xp:
yah, my friend has one and it's a power-house :eek: I was amazed at how well the HT's did.
Color me impressed... I have to give Pentium kudos on that! Very nice chip(s) (the one my friend was using was a P4 2.8ghz HT) sucker flew through multi-opened programs and we worked that puppy to death... hehehe..
well, i see it this way: multi-core processors are going to very quickly become the 'latest and greatest' offerings from Intel and AMD. simple reason: its an emerging technology that has a lot potential. at the moment, that potential is largely unrealized as well over 80-90% of computer software is single-threaded, but i think that with both Intel and AMD pushing their duel-core processors to the market, that percentage will steadily begin to drop.
as far as the gaming industry goes, you could see multi-threaded apps on PC's relatively soon for two reasons. first, the XBox 360. given that the Xbox 360 is a multi-core system, developers are already multi-threading their code. i think its quite likely that current Xbox 360 devs can quite easily use the experience of making multi-threaded apps to develop games for the PC, creating a type of 'spill-over' effect. second, you could see multi-threaded games simply because devs can now start taking advantage of having more processing power, and given how developers have historically taken advantage of better technology, this is quite likely.
i think the true question, though, is how long is it going to take for us to see multi-threaded apps to start hitting the mainstream market. i think that multi-threaded games on the PC are at least 6-7 months off, while duel-cores are going to be used more often in a multi-task environment at the office. although Intel and AMD may be pushing the consumer level duel-cores, i believe its more or less a way for them to try to push ahead with another marketing ploy. best bet: wait it out for another 6-9 months before you decide on what to do. ;)
Yep. Waiting 6-9 months for things to gel out a little more with the dual core situation is probably a good idea. Trouble is I don't know that I can hold out for that long though. Seriously. I haven't played TSL yet because I haven't wanted to experience TSL on the same mediocre system that I currently own and played KotOR on. I've already waited eight stinkin' months!!!
:nut: Must... play TSL... can't wait... any... longer......... :explode:
I'm a die-hard P4 fan, but that may be because I haven't used an AMD yet, really don't know if I ever will... but it seems like they are always coming out with a new cpu of some sort or another just about every 3 to 6 months though... I currently have a P4 2.8 GHz with HT, it's great... but I want to up my GHz to 3.8 or more if/when they come out with one that is faster then the 3.8...
Yep. Waiting 6-9 months for things to gel out a little more with the dual core situation is probably a good idea. Trouble is I don't know that I can hold out for that long though. Seriously. I haven't played TSL yet because I haven't wanted to experience TSL on the same mediocre system that I currently own and played KotOR on. I've already waited eight stinkin' months!!!
:nut: Must... play TSL... can't wait... any... longer......... :explode:then your best bet would just be to go ahead and get a nice single-core processor. like i said, duel-core processors are an emerging technology, so its going to be a while before they really hit mainstream. at the moment, a top of the line single-core processor would probably hold you over just fine for at least a year, and chances are it will hold you over for much longer than that. sure it'll be quite obsolete by then, but that won't mean that its a bad processor.
take my processor, the AMD Athlon 3200 XP Barton. this processor has been on the market for almost two years and has been rendered obsolete by several different processors from AMD. even then, i can still get very good framerates on every game i play, and overall my computer runs quite well. it may not be the fastest on the market, but it still gets the job done well.
thats the attitude you need to take in your situation: it may not be the best down the road, but it'll still work just fine. :)
Single cores are for gamers, dual-cores are for people who do everything else most of the time.
considering programers cant write multithread code for games its not really any use for gamers mabey for it type jobs
^^^^
You can make games and programs that take advantage of the second core, it's just no one has. I would think it's just a matter of "telling" the program that it can process more data at once, something that wouldn't be too hard in a language like C++ that has manual memory and data management. However programs don't need to be written specifically for multi-core processors to utilize at least part of the processor's productivity.