Should i wait for dual-core cpus?

W

wilson502

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 5, 2003
Messages
458
Been a while since ive posted here. But my system just isnt cutting it anymore. My cpu, motherboard, and ram just dont cut it anymore particularly. Should i wait for the dual-core cpus, because in COD:UO, my fps will bog down to single digits in intense firefights, with settings at 1024x768 high.
 
does turning down the resolution and graphics quality help framerates noticably?
 
Multi-core CPUs won't help games for quite some time. If you wait for dual core, do it for another reason than gaming.
 
no turning down doesnt help, im cpu limited, i can crank the resoultion as high as i want, my fps stay the same. Im wonderin if i can still use my video card or will i have to sell it and buy a PCI-express card. Card works wonderfully. I dont actually run it overclocked, i just tested it once or twice to see if it will do ultra speeds, and it did, then set it back to stock, left it stock since.
 
Your system specs look extremely similar to mine.

Since you plan on gaming AMD will be better for you than Intel (unless you plan on doing other tasks with your computer, but since you posted on this forum I'm assuming gaming is your #1 concern). Here are your primary options:

1. Wait for about 1-1.5 months. AMD should be releasing their Venice and/or San Diego chips pretty soon, and when they do it will most likely lower the prices of the current chips on the market. If you have a decent budget I would go with 3800+, 4000+, or 4200+(when it's released). The 3500+ and up prices should be the ones dropping with the release of the new chips.

2. Buy a 3000+ or 3200+ w/ a nforce 3 chipset board right now. These processors are both dirt cheap and you could get proc/mobo for less than $300.

Basically the option of going PCI-e is up to you. You will spend more however your video card should sell for 75-90% of cost on ebay. PCI-e does not offer a significant improvement over AGP (3%-5%), so it depends on when you plan on upgrading next. If you are going to stick with AGP I would suggest the Asus "AV8 Deluxe" or the MSI K8N neo2 platinum motherboards with your new processor. If you switch to a PCI-e setup I would suggest a DFI Lanparty NF4 ultra-d if you plan on overclocking, or Asus/Abit/Gigabyte NF4 boards if you don't plan on overclocking.

Sorry for the rambling/incoherant parts of my post - it is late and I've had a few drinks.

Cheers,
 
Will an AMD dual core have the multi-tasking effect of an Intel HT?
 
EULA said:
Will an AMD dual core have the multi-tasking effect of an Intel HT?
Click to expand...

Yes. It's essentially 2 chips in one package. The one catch is that proper software optimization (threading) is still not completely there yet for either AMD / Intel. The hardware is, though.
 
EULA said:
Will an AMD dual core have the multi-tasking effect of an Intel HT?
Click to expand...


For multi-threaded apps, dual core will be much better than HT for multi-tasking.

Hyperthreading is still one processor, but it relieves the operating system of the overhead of context switching. Two "virtual" cpu's are exposed. Hyperthreading is basically a way for Intel chips to compensate for the performance hit that is caused in multithreaded apps due to the extremely long pipelines.
So, for multithreaded apps, HT might give you 10% improvement over a non-HT Pentium-4 chip of the same speed. But the dual core Athlon will give you roughly 70% increase over a single core Athlon.
 
I can't tell you what you should upgrade to...
However, if you ask me, your current system is probably bogged down by the memory.
My brother had a 3 year old P4 2.4 GHz with 512 mb DDR266.
We put in 1 gb of DDR400, and overclocked it to 320 MHz with all mem timings at the lowest. Resulted in a much faster motherboard in general, and a CPU of 2.88 GHz.
We also stuck in a 6800LE and unlocked and overclocked it...
He can now play the latest games in 1024x768 or even 1280x1024 and 4xAA/16xAF.

So you may want to invest in some memory and overclock your current CPU (we used a stock all-aluminium Intel cooler, your copper Zalman will give better results, no doubt)... that buys you some time for your next upgrade. Then you can decide whether or not dual core will be a good investment, and whether to go for the Intel or the AMD flavour.
 
I agree with the previous poster. Your memory looks a weak link...

Maybe buy a dual channel pair of quality RAM sticks...that should give plenty of performance headroom (check reviews etc). If your system performs well then fine, you're covered for a while until multi-threaded games start appearing to capitalize on dual cores. And your highend memory should be good to service the needs of your future CPU should you go that way. If performance is still poor...you've bought the first component in your upgrade and can go out and buy a Venice CPU:)
 
I would deffinatly wait for dual core CPUs to come out. Since we all know when they will be comming out. They will be out before the end of the year. And knowing that they are not going to be that much more than single core cpus, why wouldnt you wait.

There will be a good performance increase in every day activity using dual core cpus.... It wont be double the performance, but logically speaking, you will have 1 core to do your task and the other core to do everything else. a 10% performance increasse over single core CPUs seem likely in todays apps.

Where Dual Core is really going to shine is Multi Tasking. The ability for you have as many apps open / running with no slowdowns. If you have used a system with Hyperthreading, then you know the feeling. Only Dual Core will be much better.

Also AMDs dual core solution will be much better than intels. all Intel is doing is glueing 2 cores together on one die.... AMD is accually implimenting some communication between the 2 cores..... So if you are thinking dual core, deffinalty look at AMD.
 
Don't mean to hijack the thread, but would dual cpus help if I run two instances of the same game at one time? I play DAoC and I run a bot...thanks to everyone else running a bot I got tired of being gimp. Anyway, would dual processors improve this?
 
Phranq said:
Don't mean to hijack the thread, but would dual cpus help if I run two instances of the same game at one time? I play DAoC and I run a bot...thanks to everyone else running a bot I got tired of being gimp. Anyway, would dual processors improve this?
Click to expand...
They would if the GPU is sufficient to run 2 instances. (And one instance takes up more than 50% cpu)
 
Im thinkin i should wait. Ive heard they will be out this summer, if so, i can wait until then. I gotta fix stuff on my car first before i put money down for a new cpu,mobo, and ram. Im still wonderin if i should sell this card, when all this stuff comes out.
 
yes, but theinq is spreading rumors about some compatibility issues with the core revision that the dual core chips will be based on.
i'm betting a bios update will solve any possible problems.
 
If DFI makes a socket 939 board thats AGP compatible and compatibile with the dual-core chips, ill stick with AGP.
 
there is such a board. i do not know when it will finally be launched and make it to retail though.
 
the way i see it i just buy a a 3000 for now and a mobo that will sopport dual cores and just wait :)

-incomudro
 
still gonna cost $500 for just using a amd 3000+ MSI ultra 3 chipset, and 1 gb of ddr433 ram.
 
I'd stick with your current rig for now, and DEFINITELY upgrade the ram to DDR400 (or higher if you're feeling flush), and probably upgrade the CPU to the best your motherboard can handle (flashing the bios if necessary). It probably wouldn't be cost effective to go to the very top P4 cpu for your socket, but get the one just below. You'll be able to take the ram with you when you upgrade.

If you really want to go AMD now, it get a cheap chip and expensive motherboard with decent ram. Staying with AGP for now, simply because you have a monster graphics card anyway. AGP isn't going to die anytime soon. Current PCIe cards are no better than AGP (aside from the SLI issue), but this will change in the future. The official line is dual-core will work with s939, but it's not certain just yet. And the dc chips will be hella expensive to start with.
 
I've read that the s939 boards will be compatible with the new multi-core chips but i also read that the new chips will have 2 memory controllers on the die, one dedicated to each core. This raises the interesting possibility of possibly 2 dedicated banks of ram, 2 or 4 gigabytes running at 1T. If this is a possibility i wonder if the current trace configuration will support that ability, it may be that with a smart addressing scheme it could or it may mean that for that added ability a new architecture may be needed. I don't know, pure speculation. It would be nice to know, i'm looking at a mobo purchase in the next couple of months. Anyone with good information's input would be appreciated.
 
everything i've seen shows one memory controller split between the cores with a memory crossbar for help with the access issues.
 
The first multi-core releases will feature one die with two CPU cores. Each core has separate L1/L2 cache hierarchies, as well as the integrated memory controller, HyperTransport™ technology and AMD PowerNow!™ technology found in single-core processors.

i may be reading it wrong, but here is the article i read

http://www.amd.com/us-en/0,,3715_11787,00.html?redir=CPPA64
 
astolpho said:
The first multi-core releases will feature one die with two CPU cores. Each core has separate L1/L2 cache hierarchies, as well as the integrated memory controller, HyperTransport™ technology and AMD PowerNow!™ technology found in single-core processors.

i may be reading it wrong, but here is the article i read

http://www.amd.com/us-en/0,,3715_11787,00.html?redir=CPPA64
Click to expand...

Separate caches, yes, one memory controller. http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/Additional/ExistingAMDOpteronDesign_med.gif

==>Lazn
 
well.... thats one question answered.... too bad.... the extra memory boost would have been nice
 
astolpho said:
well.... thats one question answered.... too bad.... the extra memory boost would have been nice
Click to expand...

Well it really would not have been a boost. You see, with 939 pins (or 940 for opterons) ~368 of them are dedicated for memory, you can't change the pinout..

So this means you have a 128 bit memory path for both cores. Your choises are, a single 128 bit (dual channel) bus for both cores to share, or separate 64 bit (single channel) buses dedicated to each core.

Now look at those two options.. If you have two 64 bit buses, and the memory that one core wants to access is on the memory bus of the other core, what does it have to do? Well ask the other core for the data. On top of this the total bandwidth (with a non NUMA OS) for each core will be half what current Opteron/ 939 pin Athlon 64's have.

With a single 128 bit bus you do have the disadvantage of the cores having to "take turns" accessing memory, but with a decent amount of local cache, this should not be a huge problem.

==>Lazn
 
also, the effect of taking turns isn't too severe because of the very low latency of the memory architecture :D
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
also, the effect of taking turns isn't too severe because of the very low latency of the memory architecture :D
Click to expand...

Exactly. The plan they chose is basically the same as current dual opteron MB's that only have a single bank of memory. (non NUMA) edit: with a faster interconnect, not that the current dedicated hyptertransport that Opterons use is slow.

Their other option was to essentally make dual 754pin cpus in a single 939 pin socket, instead of taking advantage of the dual channel bus.

==>Lazn
 
So will a Dual Core Athlon 64 perform better in a Numa Capable OS such as XP-64bit / Windows Server 2003?
 
i think just the 64bit-ness of XP-64 will help a lot, but i would assume that it will help dual core. esp if the os is made to handle threads with two cores properly
 
USMC2Hard4U said:
So will a Dual Core Athlon 64 perform better in a Numa Capable OS such as XP-64bit / Windows Server 2003?
Click to expand...

Actually no (not memory performance wise), if they had gone with two 64 bit memory busses, yes, it would have been a big difference. But with a single - dual channel bus, it will not make any difference. As said above, the 64bit performance increase should help though.

==>Lazn
 
If you want to upgrade to a 800FSB processor Asus has a 2 pages for your M/B
http://www.asus.com.tw/support/cpusupport/cpusupport.aspx
http://www.asus.com.tw/support/cpusupport/fsb800.aspx

looks like more trouble then it's worth, but I would wait myself on a major upgrade. maybe sell the 6800 for a 6600GT plus some cash since you are processor or FSB limited or both. By the time the dual core comes out I'm sure some new fangled card will be out. If you have to get rid of the 6600 it will be a lot less of a loss over the 6800 a year from now.
 
ATi R520 is sceduled to be announced this Spring. April/May time frame I am guessing. Now as for availability... who knows... Can anyone say x850 ;) :p
 
simple fact is that your cpu limited unless you overclock your cpu... your graphics card is a great card. also the new duel cores have to have programs written to take advantage of duel cores/cpus thus most programs wont benefeit from it. Just overclock your cpu dude and make sure you have your motherboard drivers installed.
 
my mb drivers are installed. My CPU doesnt overclock for shit, so overclocking is useless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top