A8N-E and dual core Athlon X2

[Mark A]

In a word, yes, but read below.

Here's a waffle that covers many of the issues:
<big snip>

Bottom line is that for a given amount of money spent on a CPU, 99% of
desktop users will see much better performance with a faster CPU (and more
cache) than a slower multi-core CPU. One should also double the system
memory if they have a dual core CPU, which factors into the price equation.

 

[Mercury]

In a word, yes, but read below.

Here's a waffle that covers many of the issues:

Ordinary Programs:
A standard user-world program usually has only 1 thread. CPU's execute
threads - threads are what are scheduled to run. Some standard user programs
are written as single threaded, but under the hood do use multiple threading
unbeknownst to the programmer EG some client database stuff. If a program
has only 1 thread then it can't use more than 1 CPU.

You can see how many threads a process has by starting task manager - Ctrl
Alt Del, Task Manager and on the processes tab, on the view menu, click
Select Columns and Tick Thread Count. Most processes have 2 or 3 threads,
but usually the 2nd and 3rd threads are little to do with the programmer. IE
some underlying subystem has started the thread hidden from the programmer
because they are using database or network functions.

Programs "Yield":
Most programs trundle along and for example need to read or write a disc
file (or network, cd, dvd user, etc). So they ask the OS to do a read or
write and *stall* waiting for the IO to complete. This is one of the usual
ways by which a windows program "yields" - gives up CPU use.

The OS can run multiple programs - by time slicing, and on a dual CPU system
by having 2 CPU's to run 2 threads on at the same time. So in this scenario
2 programs can be active at the same time - both can stall waiting for IO
freeing the CPU to idle or something else. 1 Program that does a lot of IO
can bring a dual cpu system to its knees - these programs are rare (EG
partition format).

Async IO
asynchronous: this is where a program asks for say a disc read to be done
and asks to be informed when the IO is finished, but in the mean time
continues processing rather than stalling. Increasingly common practice - it
used to be rare to find async IO outside a server class app.

The OS is designed to accept IO requests asynchronously - all IO's are run
internally async - and from multiple threads at the same time (think about
32 processors with 32 active threads & dozens ready to run). So for each
disc drive there can be a queue of IO's form. This is where NCQ abilities on
SATA drives kick in - the IO's can be serviced by each drive in the most
efficient order for each drive by that drive.

Disc Bound:
So, if you are running 2 apps each with 1 active thread, but on a system
without NCQ your system *may* not go too well because they (could be /) are
competing for the 1 drive. If the drive had NCQ it may be marginally better
(a few percent). If you had raid, it may be better again.

Multithreading:
Server class apps tend to be strongly multithreaded (EG 10, 20 or more
threads), use asynch IO (IO completion ports the best form in Windows), have
multiple user-request-process threads, use their own memory cache and so on
to acheive performance - they tend to eat RAM to reduce IO's to serve
multiple users and thrive on multiple CPU's. The enemy of server class apps
is IO - IO's have to be coded to be async to free CPU's / processes (IE
threads) to do work for other users or go idle waiting for IO's to finish.

Process Bound:
A process bound app (EG Prime95) will consume all CPU it is given and not
stall. Sometimes the Algorithms in such processes can run in parallel on
split input / output data streams (EG same files, alternating blocks of
data) and so are very good contenders for multithreading...

Process intensive apps that naturally support multithreading are the best to
make 'quick' use of dual CPU's - I can see that many games and encoding
algorithmns fall into this class. However converting any standard program to
a multithreaded program is not trivial. It is a programmers job to make
these changes... Some process intensive tasks just do not lend themselves to
this.

____

If you want the very best user experience, then IMHO Dual CPU's are the bees
knees. I have not yet had the opportunity to use a dual core system (soon),
but expect that to be just as *smooth* as dual CPU. You get a really smoothe
user experience with dual CPU's!

If you are a single program at a time user and that program does not lend
itself to multithreading, then you will get very little benefit.

If the only thing that stops you from doing more faster is the
responsiveness of your system, you run many apps at the same time (and they
are active at the same time) then GET ONE NOW (particularly if you are self
employed, charge by the hour etc. - you will be able to charge 2 hours per
hour !

If you use apps that either are or will be soon multithreaded then """""".

HTH.

 

[Mercury]

Yes, with a couple of 'exceptions'. With a single processor machine, you

can get the 'delightful' situation, where something like an old DOS
application, polls the keyboard, and uses 100% processor time doing
effectively nothing.

I have seen this a lot in apps & 1 dbms ported from MAC's.

These apps are just not suitable to run under windows at all - 1 or 2 CPU's.
They really *need* conversion.

 

[Mercury]

John, stop kidding youself. You *do* need one *now*!



So do I.

 

[John Hollingsworth]

If you want to spend more money on a CPU upgrade, get a faster (and

more cache) single processor CPU.

No, I'll stick with the 3500+ as I think its a good compromise CPU for my
duties. I always yearned for a 2 x CPU PC on the basis that it may not be
faster but won't slow down!

John

Please remove "NO-SPAM" if sending email.

 

[Mercury]

Have you ever used a dual? You don't need 2x ram, but you do need "enough"
which for a person that will make most use of the system may mean more.

There is absolutely no point in saying 99%... Each user needs to be
evaluated singularly. Each has their own work habits, there own mix of apps.
Sure many will use the same suites, many will be one finger at a time
typists. But in that 99% there will be a lot of users (I reckon 20% or more)
that will benefit 'cos they are not single finger typists and would use more
than one app at a time if their systems could handle it smoothly enough to
make it worth while. This is not just now, but for the last 10 or more
years. My first dual was a dual P100! It was worth every cent in its day.

There are a lot of "power" users out there. There are a lot of smart people
doing jobs that they shouldn't & working below capacity & 6GHz won't fix
that always.

A 3GHz system is more than enough for many today. This is not the issue at
all. 3GHz work throughput just isn't enough for many - it is not necessarily
the CPU% used over 8hrs at work, it is often the lack of responsiveness when
3 things kick in at the same time. Duals flatten this completely.

A dual 3GHz system != 6GHz single by any means. A dual of n/2 is smoother
than a single @n and will be for a long time. They are not as fast, but that
is not the issue - if you need speed get Itanium.

 

[Wookie]

Thanks for the 'Review' Mark.

This was a good thread for discussion too. I bet the X2's don't drop much
in price for awhile .. why should they as they will be AMD's top dog and it
has it's own niche so to speak. There will be an FX57 and a A64 4400 ..
4800 ..xx000 to come but I bet for at least for 6 months at least the prices
won't drop much. Intel won't have anything to push it.

 

[John Hollingsworth]

)


John

Please remove "NO-SPAM" if sending email.

 

[Mark A]

Have you ever used a dual? You don't need 2x ram, but you do need "enough"
which for a person that will make most use of the system may mean more.

There is absolutely no point in saying 99%... Each user needs to be
evaluated singularly. Each has their own work habits, there own mix of
apps. Sure many will use the same suites, many will be one finger at a
time typists. But in that 99% there will be a lot of users (I reckon 20%
or more) that will benefit 'cos they are not single finger typists and
would use more than one app at a time if their systems could handle it
smoothly enough to make it worth while. This is not just now, but for the
last 10 or more years. My first dual was a dual P100! It was worth every
cent in its day.

There are a lot of "power" users out there. There are a lot of smart
people doing jobs that they shouldn't & working below capacity & 6GHz
won't fix that always.

A 3GHz system is more than enough for many today. This is not the issue at
all. 3GHz work throughput just isn't enough for many - it is not
necessarily the CPU% used over 8hrs at work, it is often the lack of
responsiveness when 3 things kick in at the same time. Duals flatten this
completely.

A dual 3GHz system != 6GHz single by any means. A dual of n/2 is smoother
than a single @n and will be for a long time. They are not as fast, but
that is not the issue - if you need speed get Itanium.

Why don't you quit this mumbo jumbo and start comparing apples to apples.
Take a fixed amount of money for CPU and memory (combined), and set up two
machines--one with a single processor, and one with a dual core. The single
processor will be much faster because you have a fixed amount of money to
spend (don't forget you will want more memory for the dual core, which needs
to be factored into the price).

Not too many of you geeks are ever going to make it as a financial analyst
when you grow up.

 

[Ed]

Not too many of you geeks are ever going to make it as a financial analyst
when you grow up.

A FX-57 may be super fast but it still lags when multi tasking, and as
far as the prices go, well you only live once, if your a geek and have
the $$$$.$$ , go for it!

Enjoy your financial analyst classes. ;p
Ed

 

[name]

A FX-57 may be super fast but it still lags when multi tasking, and as
far as the prices go, well you only live once, if your a geek and have
the $$$$.$$ , go for it!

Enjoy your financial analyst classes. ;p
Ed

Amen.

john

 

[notely fool]

Not too many of you geeks are ever going to make it as a financial analyst
when you grow up.

LOL. This geek has a socket 754. it's cheap, runs fast, and I'm
looking forward to socket m2 or whatever it's called in a year or so.

Hope all the 939 gurus are rushing out to buy their dual channel, dual
video, dual cores

 

[Mercury]

duh. currently you are looking at premium pricing for X2. AMD is certainly
right to chage a premium for this new technology.

In a years time X2 will *not* be common place - it will be the norm, and
highly competitive price wise, so will you apply the same formula then and
buy a single on some principle?

In ayears time, those people that have purchased there X2 4400's will have 1
years use out of them. This will equate to > 1 years worth of work
throughput which for an employee that may cost 50, 75, 100, or 200,000 per
annum - an extra few dollars now for a grunty system will *often* be well
worth while.

Please, don't try to lecture on simple things like ROI. Sorry - you didn't
'cos you didn't even consider it. Tch Tch. I do charge by the hour. I slice
and dice large databases, write large s/w packages which take hours to do a
complete image build. The process is highly intensive process wise & disc IO
is heavy to the point of having multiple RAID arrays. Now, I am not alone.
There are very many industry sectors that can make substantial use of such
technology now and at $US616 or so for a chip, that is peanuts.

You do not include enough factors in your consideration "A fixed amount of
money". Thats a horendously dumb way of spec'ing a system. If you want a
CHEAP system, get one. If you want an expensive system, then get an Intel.

If you want to understand better about the factors surrounding who may
benefit, how and why, then read my posts. Until then you are casting an
ill-informed opinion based on wilful ignorance.

May the All Blacks win tonight!

 

[Mark A]

You do not include enough factors in your consideration "A fixed amount of
money". Thats a horendously dumb way of spec'ing a system. If you want a
CHEAP system, get one. If you want an expensive system, then get an Intel.

If you want to understand better about the factors surrounding who may
benefit, how and why, then read my posts. Until then you are casting an
ill-informed opinion based on wilful ignorance.

May the All Blacks win tonight!

If you want to spend $616 for a dual core CPU that runs at 2.2GHz with 512
GB L2 cache (each) , that is OK with me. But actually you will need to spend
about $800 because you will need more memory for the dual core processors.
If you don't believe me, ask anyone who uses a dual CPU PC with Windows.

So for about $800 you can get a AMD Athlon 64 FX-55 Processor (San Diego)
running at 2.6GHz with 1GB L2 cache. This will also run cooler (and
therefore quieter) than the dual core.

My point is simple. The vast majority of desktop users will see noticeably
better performance overall with the AMD Athlon 64 FX-55 (or even 53) over
the dual core AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+. Obviously there are exceptions, but
not as many exceptions as people would like to believe.

Even the $475 AMD Athlon 64 4000+ Processor (San Diego) will probably seem
faster than the dual core 4200+ most of the time.

Don't confuse the issue. I have nothing against spending money on a PC, but
I like to be able to figure out which option is the best bang for the money
(this is called financial analysis).

I also have nothing against multiple CPU's, especially in servers, since I
use 4-way and 8-way servers at work all the time.

 

[milleron]

If you want to spend $616 for a dual core CPU that runs at 2.2GHz with 512
GB L2 cache (each) , that is OK with me. But actually you will need to spend
about $800 because you will need more memory for the dual core processors.
If you don't believe me, ask anyone who uses a dual CPU PC with Windows.

So for about $800 you can get a AMD Athlon 64 FX-55 Processor (San Diego)
running at 2.6GHz with 1GB L2 cache. This will also run cooler (and
therefore quieter) than the dual core.

My point is simple. The vast majority of desktop users will see noticeably
better performance overall with the AMD Athlon 64 FX-55 (or even 53) over
the dual core AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+. Obviously there are exceptions, but
not as many exceptions as people would like to believe.

Even the $475 AMD Athlon 64 4000+ Processor (San Diego) will probably seem
faster than the dual core 4200+ most of the time.

Don't confuse the issue. I have nothing against spending money on a PC, but
I like to be able to figure out which option is the best bang for the money
(this is called financial analysis).

I also have nothing against multiple CPU's, especially in servers, since I
use 4-way and 8-way servers at work all the time.

Hey, Mark,
I followed the thread with interest. There are very valid points on
both sides of the issue, but in general I agree with you.
Your arguments are analogous to the battles I've waged in Usenet for a
few years trying to talk the average user out of spending a lot of
money on RAID-0 setups. I still think they're abject folly, even for
enthusiasts, unless they use their computer for one of the few
purposes that actually benefit from RAID 0.

I mention this because I ultimately lost that fight, and I think
you're bound to lose this one, too. These issues in most cases end up
being decided at a hormonal level rather than a logical one. I'm
almost positive that when dual-cores get down to less than $250, I'm
going to "need" one, too.

Rhetorically yours,
Ron


Ron

 

[Mark A]

Hey, Mark,
I followed the thread with interest. There are very valid points on
both sides of the issue, but in general I agree with you.
Your arguments are analogous to the battles I've waged in Usenet for a
few years trying to talk the average user out of spending a lot of
money on RAID-0 setups. I still think they're abject folly, even for
enthusiasts, unless they use their computer for one of the few
purposes that actually benefit from RAID 0.

I mention this because I ultimately lost that fight, and I think
you're bound to lose this one, too. These issues in most cases end up
being decided at a hormonal level rather than a logical one. I'm
almost positive that when dual-cores get down to less than $250, I'm
going to "need" one, too.

Rhetorically yours,
Ron

I am not going to loose any argument. I offered advise to the person who
asked, and it is up to them to do whatever they want with that advise. I
have no ego in this whatsoever. It's their money and their PC, and this is
still a free country.

The worst thing anyone can do is make decisions on the basis of invalid
information, and I don't think everyone knows that most current desktop
applications will do better with a slightly faster single CPU, rather than 2
slightly slower CPU's.

By the time the dual cores 4200+ is down to $250, maybe there will be more
applications that can exploit dual cores. Buy that time, it might actually
require 2 CPU's to run Windows with all the anti-virus, firewall, and
anti-spam software.

 

[Mercury]

There's a slight difference in the analogy your draw.
RAID 0 will result in loss of data.
A dual core CPU will not damage anything.

One of the key points that people are not addressing is that CPU's will not
continue to increase in performance as they have done in the past. The
*great folly* at the moment is that CPU manufacturers are jumping on dual
core to continue this net effect.

It won't work 'cos a dual core or cpu has never been and never will be equal
to a single of 2x (or near) the performance.

For those of us that will benefit from dual core there is no folly - just
bees knees systems. The next challenge is for programmers and program
langage designers to come up with methods that will enable easily more
effective dual core usage. Intel has been very very busy on the HT side of
this, both AMD and Intel need to put a lot of effort in to it as otherwise
the market will come to a shuddering slowdown in about 2 years.

 

[Mark A]

There's a slight difference in the analogy your draw.
RAID 0 will result in loss of data.
A dual core CPU will not damage anything.

For some of us, it is not that simple. A dual core machine will draw more
power and disapate more heat, and will require a noiser system to keep the
processor cool. Some people don't care about these things, but many people,
including myself, do care.
http://www.silentpcreview.com

 

[Mark A]

Hey, I'm in the same boat. Around here the noisiest things are birds
chirping and the sound of the wind. Most peoples definition of quiet are
noisy here.

I haven't finished my shopping list for the new system yet, but X2, Asus
A8N-E, replace the northbridge fan, XP120 heatsink with a very quiet fan,
Cool n Quiet, fanless graphics (if there is such a thing for PCI-e),
fanless high efficiency PSU, but I am stuck deciding on the case as I want
12cm fans front and rear that can be throttled right back - something like
a Lian-Li 6070 but a little bigger, quiet mountings for the HDD's. Well
you get the idea / know whats involved.

Any recommendations on a case?

Here is my system:

Antec 3700-BQE w/Nexus 120 @12V, Seasonic S12-380, Asus A8N-E w/ ZM-NB47J
chip cooler, AMD64 3500+ .90 w/XP-120 & Nexus 120 @12V, 1GB (2 x 512)
Corsair 3200C2PT, 2 x WD 160 GB SATA, Plextor PX-716A, Leadtek 6600GT
w/Zalman VF700 AlCu @5V, Audigy2 ZS, AcoustiPack Std.

I sold the stock Antec 3700-BQE PSU on ebay for about $25 and bought the
much quieter Seasonic S12.

Here is my drive mounting system:
http://forums.silentpcreview.com/viewtopic.php?t=10450

Many people on Slent PC Review forums are getting the brand new Antec P180
case.

 

[Mercury]

Hey, I'm in the same boat. Around here the noisiest things are birds
chirping and the sound of the wind. Most peoples definition of quiet are
noisy here.

I haven't finished my shopping list for the new system yet, but X2, Asus
A8N-E, replace the northbridge fan, XP120 heatsink with a very quiet fan,
Cool n Quiet, fanless graphics (if there is such a thing for PCI-e), fanless
high efficiency PSU, but I am stuck deciding on the case as I want 12cm fans
front and rear that can be throttled right back - something like a Lian-Li
6070 but a little bigger, quiet mountings for the HDD's. Well you get the
idea / know whats involved.

Any recommendations on a case?