Damn I hope this is true:)
Printable View
but they wil be eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeexpencive, right?
21 Apr is Dual Core for Opteron only, not Athlon 64.
I'll wait for price to come down. I'd rather get decent dual single core / dual dual core than single dual core. :P
but then again..... http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=22679
It wont matter to most....
m@
Quote:
Originally Posted by arthurleung
But some people will still get it for the 'big willy' factor. ;)
Dam thats awesome, just a few questions though:
1. Does that mean heat production has doubled seeing as its two amd 64s in one chip?
2. Are programs and apps ready for dual processors? I dont know of any games that are multi threaded.
I hope there better than the intel ones. I dont like intel. There stuffs hot and expensive. *shakes fist*
You've acutally tried Intel's DC chip :eek: ? What was the temp reading you got and how much did you pay for it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Trippledence
DC Opteron testage.
Apparently not, according to that review.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmy!!!
No, none of the big games are multithreaded AFAIK.Quote:
2. Are programs and apps ready for dual processors? I dont know of any games that are multi threaded.
Dual core chips are server market only really, i don't see that changing for another 2 years (with current game development cycles)
Coding a multithreaded game would take significantly more time and effort, again increasing the development time. Games are not really CPU bounded any more anyway.
TiG
Ooooo nice to see tech jumping :)
Lets wait for dual FX cores :P
Wow impressive, thanks for link + info Rave:)
They are if games have more and more physics going on, thats a lot of calculations to make.Quote:
Originally Posted by TiG
Even if most games are not multithreaded, other applications running in the background would make use of the other core ... wouldn.t they?
Yes but that wouldnt make gaming faster
A new hardware Physics Processing Unit will be the next big advance in gaming.
Dualcores are exactly like dual CPUs. They are not for gamers.
Not yet anyway, im sure in time they will have to be.
I don't believe AMD have any plans to bring them out on the S939 format, only S940, so no dual core FX's ..... yet?
I have no plans to replace my Opteron 150 any time soon.
I wonder why so many sites keep prasing dual core is the fastest, best, etc, but in fact they can get dual proc at about the same cost with about the same performance. They of course beat single proc in multi-tasking, how many site did compare it to dual proc?Quote:
Originally Posted by StormPC
Dual Core is not really that "exciting" as most people thought. Its just Marketing.
Dual core Opterons are supposedly supoposed to be available very near now, and dual core 939 A64s out some time in June.
Dual cores are EXACTLY what I expected and I'm reasonably excited.Quote:
Originally Posted by arthurleung
I fully anticpated a moderate single thread perfromance loss and moderate multi-thread performance gain, this is what I've been looking for.
Well, it SHOULD mean lower production costs for the same performance, which would be nice, and would extend the benefits of SMP to more users; and generally, I've found SMP machines to feel much more responsive. No, it's not going to double their performance, but there is a qualitative difference.
Hope to be putting them in servers later this year. That's what I'm looking forwars to, quad dualcores :)
I could get a LOT of Find-A-Drug crunching done with a dual core processor or two. Unfortunately with the lowest model being the 4200 (for the time being) I won't be buying one any time soon:rolleyes:.
not going to try 8x dual core = 16cores?Quote:
Originally Posted by 0iD
For crunching they're gonna be great. I just hate to see all these gamers getting worked up over dualcores. They'll play games ok but if you don't do crunching, CD ripping, etc... you're wasting money. Most people would be better off with a nice fast A64 singlecore. I'll be getting both the Intel and AMD dualcore rigs because I have no choice. :crazy:
I just read Anandtech's dual core bench.
Look at the pricelist.
Opteron 175 @ 2.2Ghz $999
Opteron 248 @ 2.2Ghz $455
Athlon 64 X2 4400+ @ 2.2Ghz $581
Opteron 246 @ 2Ghz $307
Opteron 170 @ 2Ghz $799
Athlon 64 X2 4200+ @ 2.2Ghz (512Kx2) $537
Now see, it is not much difference in cost for buying 2 single core or buying one dual core.
Memory: Dual Core = 4 DIMMs max, Dual CPU = 8 DIMM Max (10 for MSI)
Motherboard: Dual CPU motherboard cost a bit more, but the extra PCIe, PCI-X and memory slot worth the extra money
Performance: Dual Core = Single 128Bit Shared, Dual CPU = Dual 128Bit (Each proc with 128Bit)
And if you go dual single core you can upgrade when the price of dual core come down.
AMD site is saying release date of june for the desktop and 2006 for the mobile
Point is though Arthur, the dual core uses a lot less power and tends to be faster overall. Anyway, the dual core Athlons (as opposed to Opterons) should go in pretty much any S939 motherboard, which can be a lot cheaper and a lot better at overclocking than S940 boards.
Indeed, Opterons are multi locked. Lucky to o'clock them much. Most I've got is my Opteron 150 running @ 216 fsb giving 2592Mhz. Dual boards are mostly devoid of overclocking features. Quad boards, well forget about it.
Read my CPC Bitchin column this month ;)
Then you'll need to invest money into expensive low latency ram and fancy cooling :cool: not to mention fancy motherboard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rave
I'm not really bitching dual core but I'm just holding the point that a Dual proc setup is more worthy than Dual Core at the moment. And you could potentially go Dual Dual core later on :P Not to mention the stability of the dual proc boards. I don't have a word to say about overclocking, YMMV.
The S940 may/will be a good overclocker since the newer boards use NF4 too.
150 is the max speed of older core so obviously it does not overclock very good.Quote:
Originally Posted by 0iD
Where?Quote:
Originally Posted by David
No, just run your memory at a slower divider. Fancy motherboard, maybe; but you can pick up a pretty damn fancy board for less than the cost of a dual Opteron board; I haven't yet seen a NUMA capable board for under £200....Quote:
Originally Posted by arthurleung
True. The thing is though, lots of apps right now can take advantage of two cores but according to the TR test very few can properly utilise all four.Quote:
I'm not really bitching dual core but I'm just holding the point that a Dual proc setup is more worthy than Dual Core at the moment. And you could potentially go Dual Dual core later on :P
They tend to have prety limited bios options though AFAIK. How well they'd do with Clockgen I'm not sure:).Quote:
Not to mention the stability of the dual proc boards. I don't have a word to say about overclocking, YMMV.
The S940 may/will be a good overclocker since the newer boards use NF4 too.
one thing i think the press is forgetting to mention is that any amd users wanting to upgrade to dual core, will probably need a new OS. the advantage of current amd's is that we can get away with using XP Home, if we want the benefit of the second core, we will have to spend more and buy XP Pro.
does anyone know if Longhorn is going to be exclusively SMP aware? i cant imagine them being able to sell 'home' versions if they wont support the dual core standard.
i think that amd are doing the clever thing with their dual-core line-up in that they are leaving the FX range as single core. afterall, as a gaming chip, it doesnt need HyperThreading. i think Intel would be better off marketing their 840 as a workstation chip rather than use the 'Extreme' label which people associate with the gaming chip. a single 840 has been shown to outperform dual xeons, and is best suited for a workstation environment. of course, i wonder how the introduction of dual core chips will affect the dual-cpu market.
The extreme left on page 12. I’m pretty sure its issue 21 David’s referring to. Its a highly accurate bitching column :)Quote:
Originally Posted by StormPC
Lu tze, you're incorrect; XP (all versions) and Server 2003 treat multiple core processors as single CPUs. MS have stated that they count the number of processors, not the number of cores (physical or virtual) on that processor. Hyperthreading is an irrelevance, since that is basically a feature of Intel processors and doesn't involve multiple physical cores.
M$ licences are per socket not per core/cpu so there is no need to worry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lu-tze
Since 840 cannot be used on dual, it cannot be called a xeon.
People use P4 for servers as well so there is no need to "specify" it as a server chip.
Dual core opterons support cool and quiet.
Cool and quiet means you can lower the multiplier.
Hyper-Threading works fine on XP Home and I would expect to also be able to use a dual core CPU just as easily. I suspect Microsoft will release an update for XP Home users if that currently isn't the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lu-tze
All part of having to use Reg ram on older n-force 3 boards. Different scenario on newer ones. Still, being multi-locked is never going to give an amazing o'clock. But then Opterons are Workstation/Server chips, not meant for overclocking. Still, I like mine :)Quote:
Originally Posted by arthurleung
It's true about M$ OS's counting sockets, not cores for licensing. Even if it was not, the cost of a new OS is NOTHING compared to what a motherboard and CPU will run you if you want to go dualcore.
You guys talk about dualcore in terms of overclocking as if it is a gamer or enthusiast chip. Nothing could be further from the truth! Dualcore is for the elite cruncher only. Gamers and enthusiasts (the smart ones anyway) will not be wasting their money on such nonsense.
This brings up an interesting point. Is "smart gamer" an oxymoron? :crazy:
agree with storm, how long before many games are multithreaded and it makes a difference. 2 years before its common?
For ppl who want to overclock these beasts, you might wanna wait until 'revision 2' S939 boards come out. Current S939 mobos won't be able to handle the extra load required by overclocking dual core CPUs. The mosfets will BURN and become unstable. I'm pretty sure that most of the mobo manufacturers are cooking up rev2 boards to cope with it. Extra mosfets, etc etc.
That may be the case but actually AMD have used transistors that although are slightly slower, are a lot more efficient and therefore produce less heat. Because of this their power consumption is comparable to normal amd 64 processors :) so cooking mosfets should not really be that much of a problem.
Probably true, but as soon as people find out that these chips are not good enthusiast chips, but rather workstation and server (and crunching) powerhouses the whole point will be moot. :crazy:Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmy!!!
I plan on overclocking them to find their limits and to get a SETI crunching boost, but gaming and 3D benches are not going to be interesting at all on dualcores. San Diego 3200+>>>> :heckle: <<<<4800+ Dualcore
Clock for clock the dual core seems to perform pretty much exactly the same in games as the single core. For a purely gaming rig the single core makes more sense, true. Not everyone has the space or money for more than one PC though and so if your main PC is a jack of all trades gaming/video encoding/rendering/programming/crunching/whatever box, the tradeoff in outright game performance may well be more than compensated for by the improvement everywhere else.
People seem to be missing the fact that multi-processor systems can affect single-threaded performance, too. PCs aren't consoles, think about it that way.....
Believe me when I say that this whole overclocking dualcore thing is not an issue. The Oppainters and Maccis of the world understand that dualcore chips are not going to perform well in most benchmarks. They also understand that dualcore chips will NOT overclock as well as singlecore no matter what. Serious overclockers will simply not be overclocking dualcores except for the very few who run multithreaded benchmarks. The 3D guys will not be interested in dualcores at all, just as they are not interested in dual CPUs. Now if your passion is being in the top 1000 in SETI crunching productivity with a single computer then dualcores will certainly allow you to do that for awhile (although multiple CPU systems will become cheaper and thus will also be showing up more often in the top 1000).Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmy!!!
The only people who will be overclocking dualcores are likely to be crunchers trying to maximize productivity. These people historically are not extreme overclockers because their machines must run reliably 24/7 as they crunch. It's just not an issue guys. :crazy: