Dual Processors

[Bop]

Ok, i've been shopping around all over the place for good ways to update my computer, and i talked to a fella at a store who told me dual processors were the way to go--> what do you guys think of these things? how do they work? do they actually make your computer lightening fast? do they help prevent errors? and am i going to have problems running programs on these things? are they really beneficial or was this dude just trying to jip me?

~ thanks

[Curi0us_George]

Here's the way it goes. If you get a dual-processor system, you'll want to get an Althon system, probably. I'm not sure how easy they are to get right now, though, but they should be a good bit cheaper than an Intel solution. I'm going to assume that you want an Athlon system for this post.

In theory, you should have no problem with programs, but you may find one or two. In the past, the program non-compatabilty was really due more to the OS, but Win2000 is extremely compatable.

You will need Win NT 4, Win2000, or Win XP professional.

The Athlon MP is designed specifically for the AMD multiprocessor chipset, but it isn't necessary. You can also run standard Athlons (and Durons, too, but don't bother). The Athlon MP supports full SSE, which does increase speed quite a bit. The Athlon MP comes in lower Mhz, but it is actually faster (1.2 vs. 1.4). It also costs a bit more, so you might find that it isn't worth the extra expense.

The technology behind the dual processor is quite interesting, but it is too technical to go into here. Go to the Tomshardware article about the AMD 760MP chipset for the AthlonMP

You will find that the speed will be better, but you might find out that it isn't as fast as you'd hoped. I'm pretty sure that my next system will be a dual-processor system, though.

It will be faster.

It will not have less errors.

It may not be worth the extra cost.

[Bop]

hmm, thats quite a response--> ok a little confused though; is Althon better than Intel? Are they even comparable? and about this whole dual processor biz; seriously will i ever notice that it is making my sys faster? ~they work like this right? (correct me if i'm wrong) one processor handles the regular, background tasks; while the other focuses on the active program, or the couple of progs you're toggling between, right? am i close--

OR

should i not complicate my life with this b.s.- and just cram more RAM and diskspace into my HD?

[e144539]

That guy was more than likely making money on commission
Unless your going to be running a server with a big load I wouldn't bother.
The things that limit most home systems the most are hard drives and Memory. If I wanted to get the most speed for my buck I'd invest in some kind of RAID array with the the controller on the motherboard. Except you'll probably only find that on a mobo that supports dual CPU's. You could get the board and only one prosessor and upgrade later if you decide to.

It really just depends on what you use your box for. There are few things that require high processor usage for an extended amount of time. Highly computational programs like SETI@home and busy servers benefit the most from multiple processors. So unless you like to play Quake and UT on the same system at the same time just get a cheaper one.
Curi0us_George is right though

It will be faster... It may not be worth the cost

[Curi0us_George]

Well, the newest Intels are faster than AMD, but not by much. The Pentium 4 1.7Ghz is about on par with the Athlon 1.4Ghz, and actually a little bit slower. The Pentium 4 2.0 Ghz is faster than the Athlon 1.4 Ghz, but not by as much as you might expect. I personally don't think the extra cost justifies paying for a Pentium 4, because the performance isn't really that amazing.

You can't buy a dual-processor Pentium 4 system, though (not exactly). The current dual processor Intel processor is the Xeon 4. It's basically a Pentium 4 with more cache memory.

Honestly, if you don't know why you should want a Dual-processor system, you don't need one. I don't need one. I mostly just want bragging rights.

As for what the two processors do, then can run different programs, as you suggested, but that's not the only way it is faster. Many modern programs run "threads," which you can just imagine as different parts of a program. Threads make the use of a single processor more useful, and also allow for multitasking (ie: Windows). In addition, separate threads can also be run simultaiously on different processors if the program is designed to do so. This allows the program to run significantly faster.

Of course, if you aren't running a program desgined to take advantage of a multiprocessor environment, then Windows will automatically assign programs to each processor, so that both processors can run, also speeding up programs. This is what you were describing, or pretty close to it.

If you are running a processor slower than ~500 Mhz, you will definitely notice a difference if you upgrade. If you are running close to 1Ghz already, then you will still see a difference, but you might find that it isn't worth the extra money. Either way, you really don't need dual processors. They are nice, but unless you need to be running a professional setup for some reason, you'll probably find that the cost is not worth it.

If you are running a computer close to 1Ghz, you might want to consider adding more memory, as you suggested. Memory is really cheap right now, and it can help a lot, especially if you have less than 128 megabytes.

If you do decide to get a new system, you should at least consider an AMD Athlon system. The processors are much cheaper, and the performance is still extremely close.

Also, before you buy a new system, you should definitely read up at www.tomshardware.com. They have great info, and really good benchmark comparisons of everything from Processors and Motherboards to Network cards and Graphics cards.

P.S. You can get RAID on quite a few motherboards without multiprocessor support. The Abit KT7a-RAID is a good example. Of course, if you are going to get a new motherboard, you probably should get a board that supports DDR. You can definitely get RAID without dual processors. If you find that slow hard drive access drives you crazy, RAID would be great. The raid-enabled motherboards will allow you to use them without RAID, as well, so you can add the second hard drive later, if you want. RAID doesn't add that much to the cost of a motherboard any more, either.

[distortion]

I've had to deal with alot of people of late bringing to my attention their desire (and even bringing me the hardware in one case) for mulitple processors (specifically t-birds). e144539 and george basically gave it to you but heres it simply.

It costs a heap
The ends don't even closely justify the means (On a MS operating system at least)
Your money is better spent elsewhere

Here's even more details (sorry if this is redundant)
If you want an ideal heaving gaming machine sink your bucks into a now cheap t/bird 1.333 or 1.4 (if affordable), a good DDR mainboard, a few sticks of DDR RAM (now VERY cheap), a GeForce 3 (or wait for next nvidia chip) and maybe some broadband if you dont have any already. Multiptle processor setups are often for the sole purpose of bragging rights (but any experienced tech head will probably see thru it, it just isn't viable). You dont NEED to go that fast unless you're running a high level web server. Concentrate on getting any chip, they're all screaming, it doesn't matter! Then focus on keeping it cool and getting fast hard drives. It wont matter if your system is 1.4THz unless your hard drives are feeding you info rapidly. It's a game of weights and balances To my sadness I often see expensive high end machines from Dell and Gateway come into my shop and they're creeping along on a junk hard drive.
Conclusions
Your understanding of how multiprocessors work is on par, but its not that cut and dry. Will you have more power? Sure. Is it worth the cost? No. Intel vs. AMD This is a toss up. Intel has better chipset platforms (the chips that make your motherboard work) but their Pentium 4's are known to be mainly inferior. I'm not gonna bug you with alot more crap and numbers. With the coming chipsets for AMD I'm convinced that AMD is gonna rule roost for a while.

Happy hunting! (don't hestitate to private message if you have any questions )

(ugh, aren't you glad that's over?)

[Curi0us_George]

Originally posted by distortion
To my sadness I often see expensive high end machines from Dell and Gateway come into my shop and they're creeping along on a junk hard drive.

And, a crappy graphics card.

Dual CPUs are definitely for bragging rights. If you don't care about that, and you're not obsessed with speed, then you are wasting your money. You might be wasting it anyway.

If you want a new graphics card, then you should either get the current GeForce 3 or wait for a comparison between the upcoming 8500 from Radeon and the next GeForce. There should be a faster GeForce coming out this fall, and t'll be competing with the 8500. That'll help drive down prices, hopefully. But, if you buy a GeForce 3 right now, it won't slow down just because the newer cards come out.

You can play the waiting game forever. There will always be a faster card coming out, so unless you are waiting for something specific, then you might as well buy the one you want when you want it.

[e144539]

Originally posted by Curi0us_George
The Abit KT7a-RAID is a good example... You can definitely get RAID without dual processors.

Isn't that IDE RAID?

NO ONE CAN USE IDE EVER AGAIN
You MUST use SCSI!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mwah ha ha

[Curi0us_George]

Well, SCSI is a bit more expensive. The current IDE RAID setups are pretty good, though. Obviuosly, it's not as fast as SCSI, but it's also much cheaper.

Can you actually get on-board SCSI control? I've never wanted it. The drive costs aren't worth it, to me. If you want SCSI, you can always add it.

[e144539]

I've never shopped for it either, and I never shopped for multi processors boards at that

I've heard of boards that support 8 CPU's, I'm sure it would have a SCSI_RAID controller onboard

The thing about SCSI is it frees your CPU to do other things so I've always wanted it. What is the limit on the PCI bus bandwidth again?, me thinks onboard would have advantages.

Shall we start talking about supercomputer hardware now?

[Curi0us_George]

/me wants a Vapochilled Athlon.

[danbee]

Originally posted by e144539
The thing about SCSI is it frees your CPU to do other things so I've always wanted it. What is the limit on the PCI bus bandwidth again?, me thinks onboard would have advantages.

ultra dma ide does pretty much the same thing these days anyway. the advantage of scsi is that it's better at it. it also has faster data rates (160mb/s ultra160 compared to 100mb/s udma100) and you can get 10,000 & 15,000 rpm drives. ide tends to come in 5,400 or 7,200 rpm although there are 10,000 rpm drives available.

[EuroStyleS]

check our www.novatexas.com (might be texus) they got a few good deals on some athlons...