Dual Core Processors

[Bubblegum Bandit]

I was reading on another forum about the new dual core AMD processors. I thought I had seen an earlier thread about them here but I couldn't find it. So, can any of you tech spec guys explain to me in semi-laymens terms what the dual core is going to do for us? Practically? I will confess I didn't finish reading this article yet:

 

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2397&p=1

 

but I plan to when I get home from work. I'm obviously sooooo busy right now since I'm perusing the forums...LOL Anyway, can any of you guys boil this down for me?

[Batman]

It will double the processing power... Its like having a dual cpu system without the second chip.. In about 5 yrs it wont be ghz it will be how many cores are on the chip..

[Penty]

The thing to remember is that "currently" most aplications are only single threaded, that includes games. However with a dual core you can run 2 aplications at the same time with no performance issues. From the articles I've read the 2nd core makes a big difference in how smoothly windows runs in everyday activities. but doesn't have much if any effect with the current generation of games.

[HWarrior]

The thing to remember is that "currently"  most aplications are only single threaded, that includes games. However with a dual core you can run 2 aplications at the same time with no performance issues.  From the articles I've read the 2nd core makes a big difference in how smoothly windows runs in everyday activities. but doesn't have much if any effect with the current generation of games.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Good point. Benefit would be seen if you wanted to do something like play UT and run DVDShrink in the background.

I can't wait for those days. Maybe then I can reduce the number of computers I use daily or just do twice as much.

Edited June 8, 2005 by HWarrior

[Bothrops]

The thing to remember is that "currently"  most aplications are only single threaded, that includes games.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

yeah; 2 cores doesn't mean the apps you care about runs 2x as fast. It'll be some time before you can count on results like that. Unless, of course, you're writing your own code.

 

However, the thing I think you could reasonably get excited about is that they'll be introduced at about $500, which will affect the prices of all other chips currently on the market. That's why I keep recommending to people who are considering an upgrade (either AMD or Intel) to wait 'til these guys are released.

 

--Bothrops

[Batman]

Ahhh you guys are right, I just read an article... Still it will make games faster and thats all i care about..

[Norguard]

Heh. People say that it won't make games faster, but in all honesty, it will - just a little.

 

There's a difference between potential and reality. On a clean system, built to run only CS: Source, there is no potential for making the game run any faster.

 

But that's not the case in real life. I know that on my PC, at the same time I'm running CS:S, I have WinAmp and Norton Anti-Virus and FireFox and MS Anti-Spyware all running in the background. If the second half of the chip runs all of those, I won't notice a single fps drop from them, than if I were to run a system just for CS.

 

Tom's hardware did this test with DooM 3, playing it, while ripping a CD and zipping a .rar file. I think they got 83 fps before, and 81 fps after. Not too shabby, considering that we all know that running WinAmp is enough to drop 20-40fps in some cases.

Edited June 9, 2005 by Norguard

[appalachian_fox]

Also, we'll see more of this:

 

http://www.vmware.com/landing/consolidation.html

 

And...

 

http://bochs.sourceforge.net/ (though not quit the same thing)

 

Virtualization as you add processors. Makes a lot of sense to me. We'll likely also see multiprocess games, where different processes run different elements of the game (weather engine, character models, armaments, remaining physics engine, etc.). I had this idea (and found out I wasn't the only one) using multiple computers and a storage area network for the transport layer. A multicore solution would be dramatically cheaper...and perform better.

 

In an ideal world, all those little piddly services that run in the background of Windows should be shoveled off to one processor while your game runs on the other...In a perfect world. In reality, it's questionable whether or not you would notice the difference. Time and trials will tell, like Norguard is showing. I think it'd make a small difference now. I'll be excited if we get to the point where I can replace all my servers with two parallel fail-over devices that run all the separate functions.

 

Of course, there's always the fear of the Single Point of Failure (SPOF) and the thought that multiple server environments could go down from a major unanticipated problem with one instance...