Are dual core CPUs worth it?

Hi guys. At the moment, as we all know, dual core processors are much
more expensive than their single core counterparts.

My question is whether it is worth getting dual core processors, even
IF they were in a similar price range to single cores. For example,
take a look at the benchmark results below. Even though the Athlon 64
X2 4800+ beats the Athlon 64 4000+ CPU, it only does so by a small
margin. Considering the X2 is 4800+ rated and the single core is only
4000+ rated, shouldn't a single core 4800+ beat the X2 4800+ (assuming
you could get a single core to that speed by overclocking)

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2005...chmark_results

IMVHO, it would only be worth getting a dual core if it was much
cheaper. The price/performance ratio of X2 CPUs isn't as good as a
single core CPU at the moment.

You are, after all, losing CPU cycles in the overhead to maintain
parallel processing. Isn't the whole point of parallel processors their
lower cost?

"Random Person" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi guys. At the moment, as we all know, dual core processors are much
more expensive than their single core counterparts.

My question is whether it is worth getting dual core processors, even
IF they were in a similar price range to single cores. For example,
take a look at the benchmark results below. Even though the Athlon 64
X2 4800+ beats the Athlon 64 4000+ CPU, it only does so by a small
margin. Considering the X2 is 4800+ rated and the single core is only
4000+ rated, shouldn't a single core 4800+ beat the X2 4800+ (assuming
you could get a single core to that speed by overclocking)

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2005...chmark_results

IMVHO, it would only be worth getting a dual core if it was much
cheaper. The price/performance ratio of X2 CPUs isn't as good as a
single core CPU at the moment.

You are, after all, losing CPU cycles in the overhead to maintain
parallel processing. Isn't the whole point of parallel processors their
lower cost?



Is it worth it?...absolutely not!
These dual core CPU's will really shine when "multi-threaded software"
(games, apps, etc.) hit it big. As for now, just a big hype with little
boost in performance.
Also, remember if you are using the newer 939 chipset you already have a
dual core capable motherboard ready to upgrade to the X2's in a year when
their price is right.
--


"I don't cheat to survive. I cheat to LIVE!!"
- Alceryes

So when you're talking about dual cores and their applicability to
multi-threaded software, if the computer is going to be "single tasked"
(i.e. left almost 24/7 solving a single problem with a single program)
you're best off with a single core CPU?

So the only time a dual core would be worth it for a single task would
be if it offers a much cheaper alternative to single cores on a
cost/FLOP basis?

even if you're doing only 1 task on 1 program, if the program supports
multiple processors.. i.e photoshop,premiere,3ds etc.. it will run much
faster than a single processor would
Random Person wrote:
So when you're talking about dual cores and their applicability to
multi-threaded software, if the computer is going to be "single tasked"
(i.e. left almost 24/7 solving a single problem with a single program)
you're best off with a single core CPU?

So the only time a dual core would be worth it for a single task would
be if it offers a much cheaper alternative to single cores on a
cost/FLOP basis?

Just to clarify: Is the parallelisation in dual cores "transparent" or
does the application need to have instructions within it that call for
multiple processors?

On 28 Aug 2005 08:51:54 -0700, "Random Person"
wrote:

Just to clarify: Is the parallelisation in dual cores "transparent" or
does the application need to have instructions within it that call for
multiple processors?

It has to have multiple threads with significant parallel
processing diverted to more than one thread. So to an
extent, yes the app has to be written with the possibility
of multiple CPUs in mind.

The transparency factor would come from running multiple
apps, and/or OS, antivirus, etc, simultaneously. Generally
it is not of much benefit to try and focus on single vs
multiple cores for particular tasks rather than seeking
actual benchmarks of the app as it may be more suited to
certain CPU architectures and/or optimized for one more than
(or better than) another.

"kony" wrote in message
...
On 28 Aug 2005 08:51:54 -0700, "Random Person"
wrote:

Just to clarify: Is the parallelisation in dual cores "transparent" or
does the application need to have instructions within it that call for
multiple processors?

It has to have multiple threads with significant parallel
processing diverted to more than one thread. So to an
extent, yes the app has to be written with the possibility
of multiple CPUs in mind.

The transparency factor would come from running multiple
apps, and/or OS, antivirus, etc, simultaneously. Generally
it is not of much benefit to try and focus on single vs
multiple cores for particular tasks rather than seeking
actual benchmarks of the app as it may be more suited to
certain CPU architectures and/or optimized for one more than
(or better than) another.

Probably a daft questin but would dual core help when, for example, you're
running a game and you want to run AV/Firewall SW at the same time.
Currently running a A64 3200+ (2 GB RAM, 256MB GT6800) I generally turn off
AV SW (and othere apps) if I'm running a game such as HL2 or the FEAR demo.
Would I *need* to do this with a DC CPU?

BillL

"Alceryes" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Random Person" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi guys. At the moment, as we all know, dual core processors are much
more expensive than their single core counterparts.

My question is whether it is worth getting dual core processors, even
IF they were in a similar price range to single cores. For example,
take a look at the benchmark results below. Even though the Athlon 64
X2 4800+ beats the Athlon 64 4000+ CPU, it only does so by a small
margin. Considering the X2 is 4800+ rated and the single core is only
4000+ rated, shouldn't a single core 4800+ beat the X2 4800+ (assuming
you could get a single core to that speed by overclocking)

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2005...chmark_results

IMVHO, it would only be worth getting a dual core if it was much
cheaper. The price/performance ratio of X2 CPUs isn't as good as a
single core CPU at the moment.

You are, after all, losing CPU cycles in the overhead to maintain
parallel processing. Isn't the whole point of parallel processors their
lower cost?



Is it worth it?...absolutely not!
These dual core CPU's will really shine when "multi-threaded software"
(games, apps, etc.) hit it big. As for now, just a big hype with little
boost in performance.
Also, remember if you are using the newer 939 chipset you already have a
dual core capable motherboard ready to upgrade to the X2's in a year when
their price is right.


Except this time next year the dual cores might use DDR2, and therefore need
a new motherboard.

--
Derek

It might help a little. Although since antivirus scans access the hard
drive a lot, I think the bottleneck would be your hard drives instead
of the CPU. Of course if you are scanning your hard drive on a
different IDE channel to your game's HD...

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 18:25:26 GMT, "BillL"
wrote:


Probably a daft questin but would dual core help when, for example, you're
running a game and you want to run AV/Firewall SW at the same time.
Currently running a A64 3200+ (2 GB RAM, 256MB GT6800) I generally turn off
AV SW (and othere apps) if I'm running a game such as HL2 or the FEAR demo.
Would I *need* to do this with a DC CPU?

How much of a performance increase do you see by shutting
down and/or disabling these apps?

While a higher performance dual-core CPU can help, so can a
higher performance single-core CPU. The vast majority of
CPU time will be spend on the game so the best performance
for the game will come with the fastest *single* core,
whether that single core be a single core CPU or one of the
cores in a dual core CPU. Your focus should be on the
fastest "1st" core possible and then IF you can get a 2nd
core involved, so much the better. Ultimately shutting down
the AV/FW/etc should speed things up regardless of 1 or 2
cores, _but_ is the performance different enough to be
significant? I would've thought your current setup could
play HL2 with AV and FW running.