So what's the REAL difference? Speed? I really don't get it... All I know about the Dual Dore in general is that it's 2 processors instead of one and it runs faster.
Printable View
So what's the REAL difference? Speed? I really don't get it... All I know about the Dual Dore in general is that it's 2 processors instead of one and it runs faster.
Multitasking anyone? Intel has two types of dual core, the dual core which is just two processors stuck together on one die and interconnected (which was a dumb idea and couldn't even compete with athlon 64 procs. And the new core duo processors which are actually two processors built into one die with all the interconnections on the die, which has tremendous advantages over the old design and even gives AMD a run for their money. The fact that these chips have onboard 4mb l2 cache controlling the processors and that they operate at lower temperatures than the fiery pentium 4's, allow them to out perform anything on the market today. I read in one review that they actually disconnected the fan on one of these processors and it ran fine.
I think its all a big marketing gimmeck. When intel released the centrions with lower clock speeds and higher L2's and FSB's and whatever, they acheived the same performace with a lower ghz and temp compared to the normal chips. But whenever I heard people talking about it they would say things like well my pentium 4 ht is at 3ghz and your centrino is only 2.2 so mine is better. People like the higher numbers, more cores, even if they have no idea what it does or if it's useful. Before computers were such a large market, cpu's were named and classed based on there pin's or sockets. Nowadays its all buzzwords. At least thats what I think...
I disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duffman
Processors have become hugely more capable and efficient, unfortunately software has not kept pace.
We still don't have many apps that take advantage of 64-bit architecture, much less multicore CPUs.
What we need is a killer email client or porn surfer that works with a multi-core, 64 bit chip...then folks would see what all the hoopla is all about.
I see what your saying, but don't you think AMD and Intel are marketing the dual cores and 64 bit's like there a thousand times better than what you have now, even though there really not usefull yet?Quote:
I disagree.
Processors have become hugely more capable and efficient, unfortunately software has not kept pace.
We still don't have many apps that take advantage of 64-bit architecture, much less multicore CPUs.
What we need is a killer email client or porn surfer that works with a multi-core, 64 bit chip...then folks would see what all the hoopla is all about.
I have a AMD X2 +3800, There is a big increase in speed if your encoding, For me encoding speed is cut by half, Say a movie is 1hr 30mins a 2pass xvid with various avisynth noise filtering will take 45min each pass, I haven't seen much increase in speed with apps and such, But if your a multitasker running various apps all at once or an encoder, Then thats the benefit of a dual core proccesor.
From their standpoint they really are a thousand times more capable and the benchmarks exist to prove it.
The nub of the matter remains, "So what?"
The main reason I've backed off overclocking is that I realized that, for me, these was little tangible difference between the tweaked and stock states.
As my chips got better (socA Athlon 2600>soc754 "something or other">soc939 variants) my usage/requirements stayed the same and in general, so did the software.
XP Pro x64 is to date the only app I've run that is specifically designed for the hardware I've got and TBH, it's a dog. The Luna theme slapped over Server2003 with very limited driver/software support. Although completely functional, I was always running into little snafus with software and finally realized that I needed a full version of XP x86 to cover the holes.
64-bit Pro is an unfair comparison however.
I can't really blame software designers for ignoring x64- why bother when you know Vista is just over the horizon and needs completely different coding?
So now I'm on Vista.
So far, only the 32 bit flavor which I finally managed to install to a RAID array.
x64 is next...I hear driver support is not as good, which really ticks me off.
For the past few years all we hear about (from Intel/AMD, at least) is how great 64 bit architecture is, yet MS has to cater to the overwhelming majority of it's customer base, which is 32 bit.
Ideally, the only version of Vista would have been the 64bit Ultimate.
Think of the time saved if all the legacy crap didn't have to be dealt with.
Why, we might even have gotten all the good stuff that's been promised but eventually removed (possibly to be later released as a Service Pack or upgrade) instead of a somewhat confusing (albeit pretty) version of XP.
The bottleneck is, and probably will continue to be, the software.
We just heat up the tubes in the computer and stretch them!
On a serious note, AMD is making something called anti-hyperthread so it can make it like the two cores are one and it doesn't need software(?). so I think thats pretty cool of AMD to do that. BTW, its only available on the AM2 socket from what I read last about anti-hyperthread.
I really think we have reached a sort of limit with what a faster processor can do for you and that puts these companies in a difficult position. I can't see my Socket A motherboard going to the graveyard as fast as a pentium2 did. It supports onboard sata, can be run at 2.8mhz and on a 400mhz bus, it coverts videos in reasonable time and will run any 32bit programs I throw at it and some 16bit to boot. I will probably build a faster machine but my days of a new machine every year to keep up are over. With the speed limits reached (heat was the downfall) the companies have gone in other directions to come up with something new to sell. But, just like software that dumps useless junk on you to get you to upgrade, PC's have reached a limit which intel and amd have to contend with. The old flashget 1.5 runs just as good as 1.73 and it won't run any faster on an intel quad core extreme with 8 gigabytes of ddr4 memory. Oh! it might open faster when you click its icon but who the cuck fares.