If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
So your trying to tell me that dual 600 system is better than a single
1.4 gig system when every benchmark in the world shows a huge gap between the two. When every game plays twice as fast on the celeron, when photoshop, excel, word, music software etc perform at least 40 to 60 percent better maybe even more. Do you have anything at all that would back up what you just said. You skipped over or ignored every point I made. If you like to live your life looking at people's benchmarks, and deciding that because someone got a 1% higher FPS score on their favorite game, or that Photoshop finished 10% faster, then by all means, keep doing it. I don't live like that. I judge the machine on how much it gets done for me while I'm using it. My single-CPU machines don't get as much done as my dual-CPU machines. I have single-CPU desktops from a P2/233 to an AthlonXP 2700+. I have dual-CPU desktops from a dual P-133 to a dual 2.8-GHz Xeon. Desktop systems, mind you, not servers. And I can tell you from experience that the dual-CPU desktops let you get more done. Now, like I said, if I were going to play 3D games all day, a single-CPU machine would do at least as well, usually better. If I had other computationally-bound tasks (like applying Photoshop filters to 30-megabyte images), I'd go for the single-CPU system, and sit on my thumbs while I waited. I, for one, would *much* rather have a system that's responsive under load, which single-CPU systems are *not*. When I launch the computationally-bound processes, yes, they take longer if I'm using slower CPU's. But while they're working, I can continue on other tasks just as if there were nothing on the system. I have a feeling that you don't keep up much on kernel development. If you had, you would realize that one of the largest pushes in the 2.6 series has been to increase responsivness under load, because with single-CPU systems, you just don't have it. They've been jumping through hoops for months so that rendering pages in mozilla while you listen to ..mp3's doesn't produce any audio crackle. Guess what, I'll let you in on a secret: My dual CPU desktops (even the P133) haven't ever had that problem. And I'll let you in on another secret: The reasons don't have a thing to do with CPU speed, or elapsed time in benchmarks. As in other messages, I ask you: How many dual-CPU desktop systems do you use day in and day out? steve |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
It looks like the machine I have (an HP Kayak XAS, you may have seen me mention it already) can be upgraded from a PII 400MHz to dual PIII 600MHz. But the PIII's are substantially more expensive than the PII's, around $70 each compared to $10 each. For $150 you can get an XP tbred chip, board and DDR ram that will absolutly KILL a dual P3 system. -- Stacey |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"Steve Wolfe" wrote in message ... And more nonsense Again do you have anything that shows that they are even remotely close in benchmarks even while multitasking. Dual machines make good servers and ok single app workstations but they are terrible desktop machines. Please, tell me how many dual CPU systems you use as desktops. I've got quite a few here. I'll bet you're talking out of your butt. The vast majority of software is designed for single processors and are virtually worthless on a dual machine and it's getting worse every day as software developers code for the P4 single CPU. Hahahahahaha! You don't have a clue how many things are actually vying for CPU time, do you? And you don't have a clue about interrupts, do you? To sit there and wait for a program that can't take advantage of the extra CPU doesn't make any sense with today's prices. You're telling me that when you run X, and you have the X server trying to get CPU time, your app trying to get CPU time, your kernel using CPU time for disk I/O, your kernel using CPU time for network I/O, and quite a few others, that one CPU is going to get left idle? Like I said, you've never used a dual-CPU desktop, have you? Go home and play with your toys. steve My two centiEuros go with Steve's perspective. I have several machines in my workshop and I can tell you that dual PIII- 1 GHz feel much more responsive than one Tualatin at 1.7 GHz. Yeah, there could be overhead, but dual CPU is certainly worth it. Thing is, almost all benchmarks measure "linear speed", something like drag racing, they don't take into account real traffic performance with curves, crossroads etc. With mothern machines, task switching, intetrrupts etc. take considerable efforts and time. SMP takes some load of the foirst CPU and makes it possible for one CPU to deal with real time data and enables other to go for performance. ALL my machines will be at least dual CPU in future (workstations, servers etc). I'm still waiting for a decent dual CPU Opteron board for good price... |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 08:54:59 GMT, kony wrote:
Continuing where I left off in the previous reply, the rest is embedded below: On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 18:31:51 +0000 (UTC), (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote: The fact that the top speed for this board is 600MHz leads me to think that it will only work with the "Katmai" flavour of P-III not with its successor the "coppermine". The Coppermine was the one where they halved the amount of L2 cache on the basis that they made it full speed at the same time. These chips require a lower core voltage than the Katmai ones and some motherboards don't have voltage regulators that are capable of supplying the correct one. So, if it says top speed is 600MHz they probably mean that you're limited to the older, 512KB cache, P-III's. I didn't realize there was such a difference between a PIII 600MHz 512K cache and a PIII 600MHz 256K cache. Are all PIIIs with 512K Katmais, and all PIIIs with 256K coppermines? Regarding the previous paragraph this is in reply to, you could check the motherboard manual or spec sheet if available, or take the numbers off the voltage regulator controller chip, head to the respective manufacturer's website, check the datasheet for the voltage levels it supports. For an extra level of certainty you could take a continuity meter and check the corresponding VID pins on that regulator with the VID pins in the socket (with CPU removed), as per the socket pin functions seen on Intel's CPU data sheet for the CPU. Hmm, I just remembered, it's a slot one board... same procedure but checking continuity at the slot contact instead of a socket pin. Then there's the BIOS support... see if there's a setting in the BIOS for "Halt on CPU error" or similar. If so, disable it. You may need to update the bios, and in rare cases (some Intel boards) you don't even want to use the last BIOS updates, but rather a few earlier from the last, as Intel "caused" the board to halt while previous BIOS updates worked. When I asked about the VRM, I was told the part number 0950-2837 was for any PII/PIII up to 600MHz, and they specifically said it's not for "coppermine". I've asked if the machine would support a faster PIII if a different VRM were installed, but haven't gotten an answer yet, and I'm beginning to wonder if I will. I think the motherboard has the 440BX chipset, if that makes a difference, but I know it also matters which motherboard the chipset is sitting on. And maybe a BIOS upgrade, which HP may or may not have, and which I've never done. The more I learn about this, the more it all gets complicated by little bits of information like what you've just said above. To use a different VRM without solid evidence that it's compatible you'd need to trace the circuits and determine if it has a compatible pinout, appropriate voltage support, and can supply needed amperage. It really is a lot of work and expense for so little gain, a single modern CPU would run circles around whichever CPU(s) you can get working, and would support more memory, less expensively, in addition to a lot of other modern features lacking in a BX board. Dave |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Steve Wolfe" wrote in message ... snip You're telling me that when you run X, and you have the X server trying to get CPU time, your app trying to get CPU time, your kernel using CPU time for disk I/O, your kernel using CPU time for network I/O, and quite a few others, that one CPU is going to get left idle? Like I said, you've never used a dual-CPU desktop, have you? Go home and play with your toys. steve I'm telling you for the second time here to back up your statements. Why did you ignore the first request. Are you one of those people who thinks they can make any claim they want and never have to support those claims. Theories are nice, facts are better. Either back up what you say or retract it, it's that simple. Lane |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Steve Wolfe" wrote in message ... So your trying to tell me that dual 600 system is better than a single 1.4 gig system when every benchmark in the world shows a huge gap between the two. You're missing the point. I'm not talking about benchmarks. I'm talking about usability. Have YOU used a dual-CPU desktop? I didn't think so. Now go back home and play with your toys. steve Nice dodge now you can show me some "usability" tests or retract your statements. Lane |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Steve Wolfe" wrote in message ... So your trying to tell me that dual 600 system is better than a single 1.4 gig system when every benchmark in the world shows a huge gap between the two. When every game plays twice as fast on the celeron, when photoshop, excel, word, music software etc perform at least 40 to 60 percent better maybe even more. Do you have anything at all that would back up what you just said. You skipped over or ignored every point I made. If you like to live your life looking at people's benchmarks, and deciding that because someone got a 1% higher FPS score on their favorite game, or that Photoshop finished 10% faster, then by all means, keep doing it. I don't live like that. I judge the machine on how much it gets done for me while I'm using it. My single-CPU machines don't get as much done as my dual-CPU machines. I have single-CPU desktops from a P2/233 to an AthlonXP 2700+. I have dual-CPU desktops from a dual P-133 to a dual 2.8-GHz Xeon. Desktop systems, mind you, not servers. And I can tell you from experience that the dual-CPU desktops let you get more done. Now, like I said, if I were going to play 3D games all day, a single-CPU machine would do at least as well, usually better. If I had other computationally-bound tasks (like applying Photoshop filters to 30-megabyte images), I'd go for the single-CPU system, and sit on my thumbs while I waited. I, for one, would *much* rather have a system that's responsive under load, which single-CPU systems are *not*. When I launch the computationally-bound processes, yes, they take longer if I'm using slower CPU's. But while they're working, I can continue on other tasks just as if there were nothing on the system. I have a feeling that you don't keep up much on kernel development. If you had, you would realize that one of the largest pushes in the 2.6 series has been to increase responsivness under load, because with single-CPU systems, you just don't have it. They've been jumping through hoops for months so that rendering pages in mozilla while you listen to .mp3's doesn't produce any audio crackle. Guess what, I'll let you in on a secret: My dual CPU desktops (even the P133) haven't ever had that problem. And I'll let you in on another secret: The reasons don't have a thing to do with CPU speed, or elapsed time in benchmarks. As in other messages, I ask you: How many dual-CPU desktop systems do you use day in and day out? steve The computers I own are none of your business. Back up your statements or retract them its that simple. If you can't back up what you say then don't say it to begin with or at least have the honesty to say its your opinion. So where's the data that will back up anything you've said. Lane |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"SIOL" wrote in message ... snip My two centiEuros go with Steve's perspective. I have several machines in my workshop and I can tell you that dual PIII- 1 GHz feel much more responsive than one Tualatin at 1.7 GHz. Yeah, there could be overhead, but dual CPU is certainly worth it. Thing is, almost all benchmarks measure "linear speed", something like drag racing, they don't take into account real traffic performance with curves, crossroads etc. With mothern machines, task switching, intetrrupts etc. take considerable efforts and time. SMP takes some load of the foirst CPU and makes it possible for one CPU to deal with real time data and enables other to go for performance. ALL my machines will be at least dual CPU in future (workstations, servers etc). I'm still waiting for a decent dual CPU Opteron board for good price... And even more nonsense, but not even one website, datasheet, review, anything to back up any of their claims. Does anyone else start to see a pattern here. The reason they can't provide any proof is because it doesn't exist. The dual cpu on the desktop is a joke, it provides less than a ten percent improvement over a same sized single cpu system and that's only with special programs written for a dual machine. This has been know for years so why this nonsense keeps popping up again and again is beyond me. Lane |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
SNIP
Does anyone else start to see a pattern here. The reason they can't provide any proof is because it doesn't exist. The dual cpu on the desktop is a joke, it provides less than a ten percent improvement over a same sized single cpu system and that's only with special programs written for a dual machine. This has been know for years so why this nonsense keeps popping up again and again is beyond me. Lane When your knowledge level is so low, anything is beyond you. What kind of proof do you want from me ? I have single CPU and dual CPU systems. Latter work much better for me, especially under Linux. Difference is so obvious I don't even bother quantifying it. Besides, what benchmark should I use ? And why ? Real experience is what counts for me. I need benchmarks just for the things that I can not evaluate from real experience. And even then, I have to be carefull which benchmark to use as a guide. So, what would be proof for you ? Mpeg file showing that I really can do all that on this system at the same time ? I am aware of pale results of dual CPU systems on classic benchmarks. Judging the system by them, one would never opt for dual CPU system. It just doesn't make sense. Usually very expensive board, expensive SMP CPUs that are often a step or more behind leading single CPUs AND much more expensive etc... But just try it once (O.K. for a few days or so ) on desk and you would never want to leave it for uniCPU machine. My next personal choice would be an early Tyan board fitted with two Bartons (if I could get BArtons to work with it) or XPs. BArton would be much better due to bigger L2, but Xp would be nice also. Note that early Tyans can work with XPs and MPs alike... But since Opterons are around corner, I'll better wait for one decent board and stick two 24x in it... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
PIII 1333 | roch | General | 3 | October 3rd 03 12:53 AM |
CPU upgrade, how high can I go? | Sam | General | 3 | September 19th 03 03:30 PM |
DELL Inspiron 4000 PIII, 600, 128 RAM | sc | General | 0 | August 14th 03 11:57 AM |
Dell CS-X Slimline Notebook PIII 500Mhz help | hammer | General | 1 | July 15th 03 09:59 PM |
my graphic card require 650mhz I have a pIII 450mhz is that enough? | Kanolsen | General | 4 | June 29th 03 02:13 PM |