Dual Core Pentiums?

[Paolo Pignatelli]

There has been quite a bit of press regarding the Intel dual core CPUs. Are
they available to the Build It Yourself market yet? Any ideas regarding the
subject?

 

[BP]

Check out "Tom's Hardware Guide". They did a long article on these.

 

[APR]

Check out this link
http://www.motherboards.org/reviews/hardware/1513_1.html
APR

 

[Conor]

There has been quite a bit of press regarding the Intel dual core CPUs. Are
they available to the Build It Yourself market yet? Any ideas regarding the
subject?

Dual core CPUS are a complete waste of time for the home market at the
moment. Still, won't stop fools being parted with their cash.

 

[johns]

Poop is they greatly reduce "latency" between devices. If that is so,
then
we will see gains of 10x or more in performance. I've been benching
ddr ram
vs ddr2 in a disk imaging operation, and the ddr2 is giving me a speed
gain
of 40% over the ddr. I just wonder if we get the same effect with dual
core
and ddr3. Waiting to see.

johns

 

[John Weiss]

Dual core CPUS are a complete waste of time for the home market at the
moment. Still, won't stop fools being parted with their cash.

Dual-core CPUs or dual CPUs give a significant performance advantage to
those who multi-task and to those who use SMP-aware apps like Photoshop.
While this may not describe a majority of the home market, there are a
significant number of "power users" who can benefit.

 

[BP]

The technology comes first. The applications that use that technology come
much later.
Some want to be "ready". Others will play catch-up only when they are ready.

 

[Fuckknuckle]

Dual core CPUS are a complete waste of time for the home market at the
moment. Still, won't stop fools being parted with their cash.

Forget about Intel... Go to anandtech and check out the benchmarks for the
AMD x2. It blows away everything. Even if you're not a serious multitasker.
I went to an Intel trade show a week ago and all I heard was excuses and
trash talk about AMD.

 

[Conor]

The technology comes first. The applications that use that technology come
much later.

Dual Intel CPU boards have been out for decade. Just how much longer
should we wait?

Some want to be "ready". Others will play catch-up only when they are ready.

Well a decades worth of hardware availability and not many apps a home
user is likely to use doesn't convince me.

 

[Fuckknuckle]

Dual Intel CPU boards have been out for decade. Just how much longer
should we wait?




Well a decades worth of hardware availability and not many apps a home
user is likely to use doesn't convince me.

That's bullshit. the dual-cores are smoking everything. especially if
you're into
ripping dvd's, surfing the web, checking out the newsgroups all at the same

 

[BP]

That's bullshit. the dual-cores are smoking everything. especially if
you're into
ripping dvd's, surfing the web, checking out the newsgroups all at the
same

I am reminded of when I bought my first PC in 1991. It was a 386 clocking in
at a "Blazing fast" 33Mhz (according to the Computer Shopper" ad). It had
4MB Ram and a 120MB HD. 486's were just coming out then. For a $400 premium
I could have gone with the 486, but I had this friend in the computer biz.
He told me I was "nuts" to buy such an advanced PC (the 386). Buying the 486
was absolute insanity. "A used 286 will do everything you want" I was told.
And then he laughed that sarcastic IT guy laugh and said "What are you ever
going to do with 120MB of storage capacity?"

Well the old 386 made it till 1997 when it hit the technology wall and I had
to upgrade in order to get a CD burner (or some such nonsense). I kept it
around for a while, even loaded Windows 95 on it using 25 floppy disks, but
it eventually got too pathetic to believe and had to be put down around
2001.

Then next box was built with the latest technology available at the time,
with the best video card, sound card, etc, etc and that old beast is still
going today. I had no idea what I was going to do with some of the features
at the time, but I figured it would take me as far a possible into the
future. It did. It runs all the new software I bought (painfully slowly,
mind you) and still functions in my office as a reliable workhorse (mule).
It crapped out on games right around Myst 3. I upgraded to this current P4
system for speed (and new games) but applied the same principle: get the
latest hardware now so I don't hit the technology wall too soon.

 

[Mxsmanic]

That's bullshit. the dual-cores are smoking everything. especially if
you're into
ripping dvd's, surfing the web, checking out the newsgroups all at the same

I'm not into ripping DVDs, and surfing the Web has always been fast,
especially with more than one processor--no need for dual-core
processors.

 

[Mxsmanic]

Forget about Intel... Go to anandtech and check out the benchmarks for the
AMD x2. It blows away everything.

Indeed, if the CPU fails, it will reduce your PC to a pile of smoking
ashes.

Even if you're not a serious multitasker.

Multitasking has been around for half a century. It's interesting to
watch people talk about it as though it were something just invented.

 

[Fuckknuckle]

****knuckle writes:




Indeed, if the CPU fails, it will reduce your PC to a pile of smoking
ashes.



Multitasking has been around for half a century. It's interesting to
watch people talk about it as though it were something just invented.

Try as I might, the only conclusion I can draw from what you just wrote
is that you'd prefer to multitask on a single-core? Granted, it's
possible to
burn a cd, encode a dvd rip and surf the net on a single core, but how
is it better?
Multitasking may have been around for a half century, but 'true
multitasking can
only be achieved on a multiprocessor machine where each task is scheduled
for execution on a different processor'. The benchmarks speak for
themselves -
what is there to argue about?
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410

 

[Fuckknuckle]

****knuckle writes:




I'm not into ripping DVDs, and surfing the Web has always been fast,
especially with more than one processor--no need for dual-core
processors.

I'm talking about all at the same time there, buddy. Some people prefer
to run 5+ programs at the same time with performance loss.

 

[BP]

Try as I might, the only conclusion I can draw from what you just wrote
is that you'd prefer to multitask on a single-core? Granted, it's possible
to
burn a cd, encode a dvd rip and surf the net on a single core, but how is
it better?
Multitasking may have been around for a half century, but 'true
multitasking can
only be achieved on a multiprocessor machine where each task is scheduled
for execution on a different processor'. The benchmarks speak for
themselves -
what is there to argue about?
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410

Jesus. How old are you guys? Old PCs couldn't multitask at all. They ran
friggin DOS ferchrissakes. Windows couldn't multitask until version 3.0, and
even then it was not multitasking as people know it today. The BSOD was a
daily occurance for any brave souls who attempted it.

 

[No One]

Jesus. How old are you guys? Old PCs couldn't multitask at all. They ran
friggin DOS ferchrissakes. Windows couldn't multitask until version 3.0, and
even then it was not multitasking as people know it today. The BSOD was a
daily occurance for any brave souls who attempted it.

I cannot speak for them, but I'm 37. The 386 could do multitasking with
Unix and Xenix. It wasn't the hardware, it was the OS. And that was
the preemptive multitasking, not the co-operative nonsense of Winblows
3. 'Course, there was Concurrent DOS and DesqView which allowed
preemptive multitasking for DOS sessions. I used to run several
programmes at once with it: PC-Write for Macro editing, R:BASE Sys V for
the database and a regular dos command prompt. When OS/2 1.1 came out,
it again did multitasking with a 386 and 486.

Our first PC was a 286 with a HUGE 1 MB of RAM and 20 MB harddrive.
Once DR-DOS 6 came out, I could make full use of the 1 MB by loading
device drivers in high mem. I even ran Windows/286 on it for awhile.

 

[David Maynard]

Jesus. How old are you guys? Old PCs

And who said "PCs?" The statement was "Multitasking has been around for
half a century" and, contrary to your apparent assumption, 'PC' and
'computer' are not synonyms, much less 'IBM PC running Microsoft software'.

couldn't multitask at all.
Nonsense.

They ran
friggin DOS ferchrissakes.
So?

Windows couldn't multitask until version 3.0,

Not true.

and
even then it was not multitasking as people know it today. The BSOD was a
daily occurance for any brave souls who attempted it.

Poorly written code BSODs whether you're multitasking or not.

 

[David Maynard]

Dual Intel CPU boards have been out for decade. Just how much longer
should we wait?

No need to wait. There's a ton of applications written for those 'Dual
Intel CPU boards" that "have been out for decade."

Well a decades worth of hardware availability and not many apps a home
user is likely to use doesn't convince me.

Non sequitur. The "decades worth of hardware" you talk about was not for
the "home user."

For all the (non) sense your argument makes you might as well pine that
there aren't more 'home user' space suits on the market since 'space craft
have been out for decades'.

 

[David Maynard]

Try as I might, the only conclusion I can draw from what you just wrote
is that you'd prefer to multitask on a single-core? Granted, it's
possible to
burn a cd, encode a dvd rip and surf the net on a single core, but how
is it better?

Let's get one thing straight: The number of processors, or cores, involved
has absolutely nothing to do with "multitasking." Speed, perhaps, but not
"multitasking."

Multitasking may have been around for a half century,

Is a fact.

but 'true
multitasking can
only be achieved on a multiprocessor machine where each task is scheduled
for execution on a different processor'.

So no single processor system can do 'true multitasking' (whatever the heck
you think 'true multitasking' means) and your 'dual core' processor will be
only able to 'truly' handle 2?

That's just nonsense.

The benchmarks speak for
themselves -
what is there to argue about?

And yet you found a way.