a relatively simple question on dual processor/core

[gnome]

Quote from richardyu301:

Then I would rather buy a dual core Athon64x2 at lower freq than a high-end single core Athlon64. I am running TS, Esignal, IB, etc at the same time and getting 2 processors/cores may be a better deal.

BTW, some info for you:
i) AMD has just lowered the price of Athlon64x2.
www.amd.com/pricing
ii) AMD nomenclature. Sorry but it is in Chinese but you can guess by looking at the codes
http://bbs.gzeasy.com/lofiversion/index.php?t440824.html

I think that's probably best. 64-Bit isn't "ready for prime time" yet, and currently X64 CPUs are shipped with X32 enabled by default.

X32 will probably be around longer than the useful life of hardware purchased today.

 

[ktmexc20]

Quote from gnome:

There is always the potential problem of important applications not being supported by Linux. Many [of us] won't have a choice.

Yes, I guess that's possible and unfortunate. I've been running pure linux/OpenSource for a year now without having any probs.

Btw, like what prog would fit that category? I ask cause the times, they are a changin'.

 

[gnome]

Quote from ktmexc20:

Yes, I guess that's possible and unfortunate. I've been running pure linux/OpenSource for a year now without having any probs.

All of my stuff runs just fine on Windows. Perhaps it's not a matter of one being better, only different.

 

[ktmexc20]

Quote from gnome:

All of my stuff runs just fine on Windows. Perhaps it's not a matter of one being better, only different.

Cool. But it's all frree ee.

Ok I'm done. Sorry.

 

[stunt.programme]

- Windows 2000 supports dual processor (including dual core or hyperthreading) just fine. Your mainboard is almost certainly not capable of taking either a second processor or a dual-core chip in the existing socket.

- 64 bit is just fine for the prime time. Many production setups are running it, often with Linux or Solaris. Win64 is lacking a little with driver support and the occasional app like real player. A properly config'd box with a standard OS build from your admins will work just fine.

 

[limitdown]

Quote from dcraig:

No, dual core is much superior. Also, I think it's recognised that the benefits (if any) of HT depend on what type of applications you are running. I don't know if win2k supports dual core. Probably not. You need to check this if you're sticking with Win2K.

it does....

more processes are allocated to the motherboard irrespective of the underlying operating system, by channeling the demands for CPU through the cores that are available.

 

[dcraig]

Quote from limitdown:

it does....

more processes are allocated to the motherboard irrespective of the underlying operating system, by channeling the demands for CPU through the cores that are available.

OK that's handy to know about Windows 2000. It's important to understand though that it's not just a hardware/motherboard issue so one shouldn't assume dual core support without checking.

The operating system must explicitly support multi-core or multi CPUs. For example a quick search of the Linux kernel source code shows that configuring dual-core/SMP on affects 293 separate source files. This is true for any operating system.

 

[fastpenny]

anybody know how a dual core cpu's performance compare to a dual processor system? eg. a 2.8 ghz dual core intel cpu compare to dual xeon 2.8 ghz?

 

[dcraig]

Quote from fastpenny:

anybody know how a dual core cpu's performance compare to a dual processor system? eg. a 2.8 ghz dual core intel cpu compare to dual xeon 2.8 ghz?

I don't recall seeing any benchmarks, but one thing to look at is the size of the processor cache. More cache == better. As the number of simultaneouly active programs increases the benefits of large cache should become greater.The dual core should be much more cost effective for ordinary PC use.

If you really want performance why not look at something like dual chip / dual core AMD Opteron.

 

[richardyu301]

Quote from dcraig:

I don't recall seeing any benchmarks, but one thing to look at is the size of the processor cache. More cache == better. As the number of simultaneouly active programs increases the benefits of large cache should become greater.The dual core should be much more cost effective for ordinary PC use.

If you really want performance why not look at something like dual chip / dual core AMD Opteron.

The benchmark (dual core vs dual processor)

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/11/07/single/