Are Pentium D Processors Worthless?

[John Doe]

True, most users do not use their dual-or-more core PCs properly.
Still focusing on a single task at a time, forgetting it can handle
double the workload without any real lose in performance.

The bottom line is that Supreme Commander uses multiple core CPUs.



That probably will be my next upgrade, but not for a while since I
recently increased RAM to 2 GB, rounding out my system.

 

[DK]

The same could be said about your writing.
No.

By the way. How can you run two instances of a program sequentially?

I meant one program ran twice sequentially or two instances of it
simultaneously.

Either you're running them simultaneously or there's no point in two
instances, Eh?

Of course.

 

[DK]

What do you use to measure that?

I time it. A computation-intensive single threaded task that
normally boggles down single CPU (protein crystallography
refinement in my case) has only marginal on the performace of
another app (complex raytracing in my case).

DK

 

[Ken]

Windows is not a dual-core OS.

Some Windows versions is.

 

[Clark]

[snip]

Well. You will only see an improvement if the application is
written to support dual core. You went from a 2.8Ghz to a dual core
2.66Ghz. If the application only uses 1 core, then there won't be much
of an upgrade, if any. I would have at least went with a Pentium D
945, or 940 over what you had. Even in single core usage, you would be
better than what you had.
I'm not an Intel man, yet, but do Intel dual cores require a
patch, or driver be applied to Windows to have both cores function
properly?

Since no one else has responded to your driver/patch question I'll relate my
experience.

I recently built a C2D box and did not have to install a driver or patch as a
separate step on the Windows installation. I installed XP, XP64, and Vista. I
did not try W2K. There may be a driver installed along with the motherboard
chipset drivers but I sure didn't see it. A brief glance at the motherboard
CD shows north and south bridge drivers along with IDE drivers but no
apparent C2D driver.

My guess is that no separate driver is required for C2D. That's a nice change
from the "I bought the damn second CPU now how do I make it work?" stumble
from the Xeon and MP/Opteron systems. On the flip side, it sounds like some
programs developed for dual/multi-CPU systems won't use both cores on the C2D
so some folks still have to buy multi-CPU boards. I'm guessing that those
developers didn't use threads...

 

[John Doe]

Maybe.


I meant one program ran twice sequentially or two instances of it
simultaneously.

Well then, why not two different programs run sequentially.

Of course.

Well then, why didn't you say so.

 

[John Doe]

I time it.

But seriously.
So you've never heard of Performance Monitor.

 

[stefanbanev]

You shouldn't see any performance improvement at all, running windows. (it
only uses one core)


Ummm, you are correct. Windows is not a dual-core OS.



Obviously not a hardware issue.


No, you've just posted more evidence that the hardware is OK.

No, the processor is not the bottleneck. Your pentium D should run any game
just fine. You are looking at a driver issue of some kind. Either that, or
possibly oblivion is missing an important "patch". -Dave

MikeT> Windows is not a dual-core OS.

You probably are talking about Windows-3.X/Windows95-98 do not support
multi-core as well as MS-DOS and CP/M ;o) (Wake up Mike)

Windows XP home/professional have been supporting dual core CPU at
least for two years:
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Weblets/0,,7832_8366_7595~95364,00.html

 

[Dave]

MikeT> Windows is not a dual-core OS.

You probably are talking about Windows-3.X/Windows95-98 do not support
multi-core as well as MS-DOS and CP/M ;o) (Wake up Mike)

Windows XP home/professional have been supporting dual core CPU at
least for two years:
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Weblets/0,,7832_8366_7595~95364,00.html

Well it's easy to see how so many people are confused on this issue.
"Windows" will run on dual-core processors. In that sense, dual-core
processors are "supported". And some windows applications are actually
SMP-aware, meaning that they can indeed benefit from multi-core processors.
However, the average home user will not see a significant performance
increase in their system running Windows, just by changing the processor
from a single core to a similar multi-core processor.

So it's misleading to say that Windows supports dual core CPUs. -Dave

 

[Ken]

Well it's easy to see how so many people are confused on this issue.
"Windows" will run on dual-core processors. In that sense, dual-core
processors are "supported". And some windows applications are actually
SMP-aware, meaning that they can indeed benefit from multi-core processors.
However, the average home user will not see a significant performance
increase in their system running Windows, just by changing the processor
from a single core to a similar multi-core processor.

You have to reinstall Windows or just the HAL.

So it's misleading to say that Windows supports dual core CPUs. -Dave

No. You are wrong.

 

[DK]

But seriously.
So you've never heard of Performance Monitor.

I have. But I didn't trust it.

 

[DK]

Well it's easy to see how so many people are confused on this issue.
"Windows" will run on dual-core processors. In that sense, dual-core
processors are "supported". And some windows applications are actually
SMP-aware, meaning that they can indeed benefit from multi-core processors.
However, the average home user will not see a significant performance
increase in their system running Windows, just by changing the processor
from a single core to a similar multi-core processor.

So it's misleading to say that Windows supports dual core CPUs. -Dave

No, it is not. The situation on Linux is identical to Windows - if you
run an app that is not SMP-aware, it will only be using one CPU.

Anyone Windows 2K/XP user running several CPU-intensive programs
simultaneously will benefit from dual core.

DK

 

[John Doe]

I have. But I didn't trust it.

But seriously.

 

[DK]

But seriously.

Well, if you insist, Performace Monitor shows the same basic
thing. Now **** off since you obviously are a moron can't support
intelligent discussion (and knows nothing about windows).

DK

 

[stefanbanev]

Well it's easy to see how so many people are confused on this issue.
"Windows" will run on dual-core processors. In that sense, dual-core
processors are "supported". And some windows applications are actually
SMP-aware, meaning that they can indeed benefit from multi-core processors.
However, the average home user will not see a significant performance
increase in their system running Windows, just by changing the processor
from a single core to a similar multi-core processor.

Dave> So it's misleading to say that Windows supports dual core CPUs.
-Dave

I guess that MS-DOS running on 8-core machine will just re-enforce
your impressive integrity.

 

[Dave]

Dave> So it's misleading to say that Windows supports dual core CPUs.
-Dave

I guess that MS-DOS running on 8-core machine will just re-enforce
your impressive integrity.

There's a difference between compatible and utilizes. Learn it. -Dave

 

[stefanbanev]

Dave> There's a difference between compatible and utilizes. Learn
it. -Dave


(**) Dave> So it's misleading to say that Windows supports dual core
CPUs.
(*) {Dave>"Windows" will run on dual-core processors. In that sense,
dual-core processors are "supported"}

According to your definition above (*) MS-DOS "supports" dual-core
processors.

Dave> There's a difference between compatible and utilizes. Learn it.

Please point where the compatibility has been mentioned? Your original
statement was:
"Dave> So it's misleading to say that Windows supports dual core
CPUs."

Windows NT/2000/XP/Vista does support dual-core CPUs and will run
different processes/threads on both cores. The OS which does not
support multi-core CPU will not execute any CPU instruction(s) on more
then one core.

If it is still not entirely clear for you that "Windows NT/2000/XP/
Vista does support dual-core CPUs" then I think it never will be.

 

[John Doe]

Well, if you insist, Performace Monitor shows the same basic
thing.

How so? Why don't you trust it?

Now **** off since you obviously are a moron can't support
intelligent discussion (and knows nothing about windows).

I make Windows dance and sing, it's my forte.