PDA

View Full Version : Dual Core better for SLi than single core?


thor1182
05-09-05, 09:57 AM
I'm debating on which CPU to get for the tower that I am building. I was going to get a FX CPU, but wondering if it would be better to get one of the X2 4800+'s instead. I know that the SLi drivers create a lot of overhead and my guess is that a second core for the OS to work with is better than getting a faster single core. Any thoughts on this?

Pandora's Box
05-09-05, 10:46 AM
dual core aint going to do nothing if the program isnt coded for it.

HighTest
05-09-05, 02:17 PM
I'm debating on which CPU to get for the tower that I am building. I was going to get a FX CPU, but wondering if it would be better to get one of the X2 4800+'s instead. I know that the SLi drivers create a lot of overhead and my guess is that a second core for the OS to work with is better than getting a faster single core. Any thoughts on this?

According to PC World's recent tests, the X2 was faster than even the FX series. I'm begining why anyone would purchase and FX. Of course you'll have to wait for an X2 outside of the reviewing community.

jolle
05-09-05, 02:46 PM
dual core aint going to do nothing if the program isnt coded for it.

...and games arent, except some rare cases.
Profesional tools like most 3d programs, heavier video editing programs etc usually are tho.

You get better multitasking with dual core, but it wont help games directly.

ViN86
05-09-05, 04:54 PM
if youre going to be running encoding programs or a lot of background applications, dual core wont help you. as was said, most games are written for single cores, and thats all they will run on, one core.

pakotlar
05-09-05, 05:01 PM
Please do yourself a favor and get the X2. For the same price, you get an extra core. The FX55 is marginally (think 0-5%) faster in some games, and slower in some others (due to x24800 using Venice core). The FX55 affords you only 200 extra mhz. Not a good deal IMO. The X2 4800's have all been overclocking to 2.6ghz - 2.7ghz anyways. Get the X2. You will notice a much smoother windows environment, and great speed in games to boot.

edit: As far as games go, they are moving towards multi-threaded runtimes anyways. The Unreal Engine 3 is multithreaded, as is the splinter cell 3 engine. All next-gen consoles are multi-threaded on the cpu side, so ALL next-gen engines will be as well. Because of this you will see greater growth from that X2 cpu than from the fx 55.

thor1182
05-09-05, 06:48 PM
Most of you seemed to miss the complete question, and that was a X2 with SLi. In most cases running just the game, a FX will be better, but as soon as you through in multi tasking a X2 will be better. I was just wondering if the SLi driver overhead would get moved over to the second CPU htus freeing up more CPU for the single threaded gamming stuff.

ViN86
05-09-05, 09:29 PM
Most of you seemed to miss the complete question, and that was a X2 with SLi. In most cases running just the game, a FX will be better, but as soon as you through in multi tasking a X2 will be better. I was just wondering if the SLi driver overhead would get moved over to the second CPU htus freeing up more CPU for the single threaded gamming stuff.
did you just answer your own question? :wtf:

thor1182
05-10-05, 12:38 AM
well I have a good theory, but I dunno if there is any fact to it. I was hoping that someone who had a better understanding of how the drivers interact with the OS and the scheduler in XP to know if all the SLi overhead could be separated into a separate thread from the game’s thread and run from the second core, thus a potentially big performance boost over a single core set up for SLi set ups.

GlowStick
05-10-05, 12:51 AM
I'm debating on which CPU to get for the tower that I am building. I was going to get a FX CPU, but wondering if it would be better to get one of the X2 4800+'s instead. I know that the SLi drivers create a lot of overhead and my guess is that a second core for the OS to work with is better than getting a faster single core. Any thoughts on this?
The answer is allways, no.

According to PC World's recent tests, the X2 was faster than even the FX series. I'm begining why anyone would purchase and FX. Of course you'll have to wait for an X2 outside of the reviewing community.
That may be ture for multithreaded benchmarks, but otherwise no.

AMD states that the FX is still the flagship for preformance.

well I have a good theory, but I dunno if there is any fact to it. I was hoping that someone who had a better understanding of how the drivers interact with the OS and the scheduler in XP to know if all the SLi overhead could be separated into a separate thread from the game’s thread and run from the second core, thus a potentially big performance boost over a single core set up for SLi set ups.

Unfortuanlty no it dosent work that way.

No time for my rant that has to be repeated 10 times a day :mad:

Dual core, is just a new packaging for SMP. For years and years, people have had access to, and have built machines with two processors in them.

If your expecting some magical preformance gain, why didnt you build a smp system years ago?

You could of had SMP years ago, but if you didnt want it then, why do you want it now. As a average user you will not benefit from it ever simple as that.

Slammin
05-10-05, 12:56 AM
Regardless, until HT came out, almost every machine I had before was dual CPU. And I don't care what anyone says, in my own personal experience, EVERYTHING runs better on a dually, whether the app/game is threaded or not, as long as the OS supports multi cpu's.