Support NeoGAF

[marsomega]

Just read the preview on the dual core opterons and the article also happened to talk about the Athlon64 X2's coming June. Apparently they will only be available in OEM early with retail in Q4. However, the part that was much more interesting was the pricing. Seems like like AMD is following in ATI's footsteps. AMD says that they are literally selling every AMD64 CPU they make, and priced accordingly since there dual cores out the gate will be more expensive then the Intel dual cores. The AthlonFX's won't see dual cores because gaming is still primarily single threaded and they're aimed at the gaming enthusiast. AMD plans to keep them expensive and keep uping the clocks. Regardless, I'd hate to see the prive on those things.

CPU Clock Speed L2 Cache Size Price
Athlon 64 X2 4800+ 2.4GHz 1MB $1001
Athlon 64 X2 4600+ 2.4GHz 512KB $803
Athlon 64 X2 4400+ 2.2GHz 1MB $581
Athlon 64 X2 4200+ 2.2GHz 512KB $537

Well the cheapest AMD64 4000 comes in at 530, so I guess the 4200 is alright. Either way, I was hoping for a sub 3XXX+ dual core.

Anyone here thinking of dual core? What do you think dual core would do for you?

I personally hope for ADOBE full x64 and dual core support. I mean, it already has multi-proc support no? At least photoshop CS I think I don't know about the others. I have the CS Premium and I'm waiting on the Video Collection because I don't want to buy only have a new version come out next month. Hopefully those will fully benefit from it.

I read that if you do something computationly expensive this should help in that you'll be able to do something else at top speed while the background handles it. The article talked about playing multi-player half life 2 while you're encoding a DVD.

Discuss. Give benefits of dual core you think everyone would get that aren't mention or have thought of. I was so planning on going dual core in June/July.


Woo hoo, Least current 939 motherboards only need a bios update. From Anandtech article.

Intel's dual core Pentium D and Extreme Edition won't work in any previous motherboards, but as we mentioned at the start of this article, AMD has more bang. Here, the additional bang comes from the almost 100% backwards compatibility with single-core motherboards. We say "almost" because it's not totally perfect; here's the breakdown:

- On the desktop, the Athlon 64 X2 series is fully compatible with all Socket-939 motherboards. All you need is a BIOS update and you're good to go.

- For workstations/servers, if you have a motherboard that supports the 90nm Opterons, then all you need is a BIOS update for dual core Opteron support. If the motherboard does not support 90nm Opterons then you are, unfortunately, out of luck.

For desktop users, the ability to upgrade your current Socket-939 motherboards to support dual core in the future is a huge offer from AMD. While it may not please motherboard manufacturers to lengthen upgrade cycles like this, we have never seen a CPU manufacturer take care of their users like this before. Even during the Socket-A days when you didn't have to upgrade your motherboard, most users still did because of better chipsets. AMD's architectural decisions have made those days obsolete. The next generation of dual core processors will most likely need a new motherboard, but rest assured that you have a solid upgrade path if you have recently invested in a new Socket-939 desktop system or Socket-940.

Anandtech Article

Link to the Firingsquad Article

 

[AntoneM]

my next GPU will probably be multi core so why not my CPU. In about 18 months from now I'll be upgrading, hopefully by then games have been optimised.

 

[truesayian]

Here's the thing, i'm not sure if i am...

I'm going to be getting a new pc this summer... I'm leaning toward a dual xeon 3.4ghz... but would it be any better to go with one of the new dual core athlons or p4?...

would there be any advantage with a athlon x2?

 

[teh_pwn]

For gaming purposes it give you no benefit. Games have to be designed with it in mind first.

 

[aaaaa0]

Dual core/dual processor machines feel a lot smoother when multitasking.

Almost useless for pure gaming (at least until games start supporting multiple threads), but if you do any real work on your PC, it's really worth it.

 

[truesayian]

do i do any real work... yea... tons.... tons of 3d, tons of compositing, tons of rendering...



That's why i'm looking into getting a dual in the first place... It's obvious that the dual's wont help for gaming... at least not yet..


But what would be better?... dual xeon's? or a dual core chip....


unless you can dual the dual cores...

 

[Diablos]

There is absolutely nothing a dual core CPU could do for me at this point. Well, one could put me in a world of debt, but that's about it. 1.83GHz/333MHz FSB is more than sufficent for my needs, and likely will be until late 2006/early 2007.

 

[Crazymoogle]

unless you can dual the dual cores...

If one of the dual-socket motherboard manufacturers updates for dual core compatibility, then yes, you can absolutely go for a 2x2 solution.

Although, what sort of Windows you would need to correctly recognize everything is another matter entirely.

 

[alejob]

How is gaming single threaded? Its make no sense to me. For example in a racing game seperate threads should handle different cars. Multiplayer games most certainly use mthreads to handle different players. I have no clue when it comes to game programming but it seems to me that there would be a bunch of threads in a game.

 

[lexi]

Dual core's and dual CPU's are entirely different. Both have pretty much no practical application for games thus far, except for dedicating a specific Win32 process to one of the CPU's.

 

[Crazymoogle]

I have no clue when it comes to game programming but it seems to me that there would be a bunch of threads in a game.

There are a bunch of calculations going on in a game at any one moment - as you are thinking - but there is nothing inherent in CPU architecture that could auto-magically spread calculations across multiple CPUs.

Multithread processing is like having two heads; one can't know what the other is thinking until it actually blurts something out, and there's no guarantee whatsoever that they will find an answer at the exact same time. That's a big problem when you need to have a completed frame based on all sorts of information, 30 times a second.

 

[Nos_G]

I might pick up the 4400 for quicker media encoding... other than that, it's just for a bigger e-penis!

Yeah baby! Yeah!

 

[truesayian]

- For workstations/servers, if you have a motherboard that supports the 90nm Opterons, then all you need is a BIOS update for dual core Opteron support.

so if you have a motherboard that supports dual opteron's then you just need a bios update for dual udal core's?...


right right?..

 

[alejob]

There are a bunch of calculations going on in a game at any one moment - as you are thinking - but there is nothing inherent in CPU architecture that could auto-magically spread calculations across multiple CPUs.

Wouldn't this "bunch of calculations" be threads though? And are't multicore CPUs supposed to handle multithread applications? So unless you have to actually code threads to use multiple cores then I don't get it.

Multithread processing is like having two heads; one can't know what the other is thinking until it actually blurts something out, and there's no guarantee whatsoever that they will find an answer at the exact same time. That's a big problem when you need to have a completed frame based on all sorts of information, 30 times a second.

Good, but there would be no difference between this threads getting processed in one core versus 2 cores except that in the 2 core CPU it would be done faster 'cause threads wouldn't be sharing CPU time. So I don't get your point.

So basicaly I need to do my homework on how multicore processors handle threads.

 

[AB 101]

Well, I have a AMD 3500+ and a 6800 Ultra.

Will probably wait a while until my next upgrade.

Will certainly be a dual core setup and what ever is the best GPU available.

Next summer probably.

Will be nice to have a 360 to tide me over.

 

[teh_pwn]

You upgrade annually? That's a little too much.

 

[Sqrt_minus_one]

Wouldn't this "bunch of calculations" be threads though? And are't multicore CPUs supposed to handle multithread applications? So unless you have to actually code threads to use multiple cores then I don't get it.


Good, but there would be no difference between this threads getting processed in one core versus 2 cores except that in the 2 core CPU it would be done faster 'cause threads wouldn't be sharing CPU time. So I don't get your point.

So basicaly I need to do my homework on how multicore processors handle threads.

I beleive the reason multicore processors are not so hot on current applications comes down to the following, the multiple threads you speak of depend upon the results of one another. So for instance the values thread 1 generates are to be fed into thread 2, so one cannot start executing thread 2's instructions until thread 1 has finished thus bringing you back to the level of single core performance.
Another reason is that occasionally thread 2 depends on a value thread 1 modifies, ie the value exists already, so if thread 2 were to execute before thread one updates the value it would do so with incorrect values and this will have to be corrected a procedure which takes away resources from normal program execution.

 

[Cerebral Palsy]

I hope the next PowerMac revs have the dual core 970MP cpus, and pci-express. I want to upgrade.

 

[marsomega]

Wouldn't this "bunch of calculations" be threads though? And are't multicore CPUs supposed to handle multithread applications? So unless you have to actually code threads to use multiple cores then I don't get it.


Good, but there would be no difference between this threads getting processed in one core versus 2 cores except that in the 2 core CPU it would be done faster 'cause threads wouldn't be sharing CPU time. So I don't get your point.

So basicaly I need to do my homework on how multicore processors handle threads.

No. Multi-Threaded applications do not need to be specifically coded to use multi-processors with Windows.

The way Threads are assigned, handled, governed, etc. is handled by the Operating System. In fact, you technically won't ever have direct control. There are two types of threads in Windows, Kernel Threads and User Threads. User Threads will never have access to the CPU(s) directly. When a user thread wants the CPU, Windows will create Kernal thread to take care of the User thread. It is a one to one model, when a user thread wants CPU it does it through a Kernal thread. The benefit of this is that multiple threads can run in parallel on multible processors.

I beleive the reason multicore processors are not so hot on current applications comes down to the following, the multiple threads you speak of depend upon the results of one another. So for instance the values thread 1 generates are to be fed into thread 2, so one cannot start executing thread 2's instructions until thread 1 has finished thus bringing you back to the level of single core performance.
Another reason is that occasionally thread 2 depends on a value thread 1 modifies, ie the value exists already, so if thread 2 were to execute before thread one updates the value it would do so with incorrect values and this will have to be corrected a procedure which takes away resources from normal program execution.

That is not always true. It all depends on what you are programming for. There are things that will benefit, there are things that wont, and then there are embarrasingly parallel that you can't program any other way.

Whether programs are multi-threaded or not depends all on the programmer and their efforts. Which we all know, not all programmers are good programmers.