If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Dual CPU systems - still worth it?
If anyone can suggest a better forum to post this question please let me
know. Thanks. It's been over 4 years since I last bought a new PC. It's getting to be that time again, and I've got to decide between getting a single CPU system and a dual. Back in 98, I bought a Tyan Tiger 100 S1832DL and a P2-400. The dual motherboard only cost $100 more than single cpu boards of the day. It only had 128MB ram. The processor was about $1100 canadian. I only bought one because that's all I could afford at the time. When prices dropped to $200, I got another P2-400. When P3-800 dropped to $300, I upgraded to dual P3-800. I've added 1GB RAM and a Ti4200 128mb. So that's as far as this system's going to go. It's great for productivity apps, downloads, ripping mp3s, etc. It sucks for new games and it's slow for converting AVI-DVD. But I'm happy this system has lasted as long as it has. Having 2 CPUs has been great for a lot of the stuff I do. I can really load up a lot of processes and the system remains responsive. But I know times have changed and there's no way I can expect a system to last that long, at least not if I want to stay current with software. I love dual CPU systems, I just don't know if I can keep justifying the extra cost, when I can get a single CPU system that's faster for games at h alf the price. I've been comparing AMD64 3400+, AMD FX-51, Opteron 244, and Opteron 246. To go for a single Opteron 246 (2.0 ghz) , I'm looking at almost 2x the cost of a 3400+ (2.2 ghz). To get the costs closer, I'd have to look at a single Opteron 244 (1.8ghz). And then hope that prices for Opterons drop to something reasonable before they go off the market, so that I can eventually upgrade to dual. Meanwhile, I could just go for a 3400+ "disposable" system and in the time I hope to upgrade to dual opterons, possibly longer, just wait to buy an entirely new system, or at least motherboard / cpu / ram, to whatever the next range of systems are. Best option for productivity apps? Maybe not, having the ability to through in an instant boost with another cpu is great. But building a new system in a shorter timeframe is definately the best option to go with as far as staying current with games goes. It's really the gaming where my system suffers the worst, and games don't often take advantage of dual cpu systems, unless you're running a server or offloading some other process. I have seen a marginal improvement in pings for some games when switching between 1 and 2 cpus, but it's not enough to make a big difference. The only productivity apps where I'm really feeling the cpu limits are AVI - DVD/MPEG conversions, and CD digital audio to FLAC lossless. Some video conversion apps support multiple CPUs, but it doesn't make more than a 25% difference it seems to me. In other cases, like the lossless audio compression, I haven't found software that supports dual CPUs anyways. I'm leaning towards AMD instead of Intel this time around. It seems they offer the best price / performance for both single and dual cpu systems. I can at least come close to the price of AMD duals. Intel Dual Xeons just seem to stretch the price difference out even more. Again, the dual systems for both are using slower bus rates, older chips, etc, than the current single cpu systems. I do see some applications benefiting from HT but right now I don't think spending the extra coin is worth it, just to do for example faster AVI-DVD conversions with an app that supports SMP / HT. If I did it for a living and made money off it, then the answer would be different. Then there's overclocking. I can only get about a 12% overclock on my system; I can't lock the pci or agp bus. Dual cpu systems tend not to OC to well. Not that OC is hugely important to me, I hardly ever use it, but it's handy to get the most out of some games. If there's a particular cpu/motherboard/memory/cooling combination that would yield reliable OC results when needed, I'd be very interested in going that route to get a little bit better price / performance. Again, it seems the AMD 64 route seems to offer a bit more in this direction. Ultimately, I'd like to wait until Doom 3 is released, and make my purchase then. I don't expect a huge difference between AMD / Intel top of the line single CPU performance. But I think there could be some significant differences in video cards. But it's taking quite a while and I don't want to stay on a dual P3-800 forever. I may have to just go ahead and buy a system sooner. I'm curious to hear from anyone else who's had to make the same decision recently, and what you ended up going with. Single or dual, AMD or Intel. Overclocked or not. Thanks in advance. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
But I know times have changed and there's no way I can expect a system
to last that long, at least not if I want to stay current with software. The machine that I just replaced at home was a P3/650, which was 5+ years old. The only reason I replaced it was to play games - all other software I use was still perfectly fine on it. And I expect the upgraded system to last even longer - systems have a LOT more spare CPU cycles today than they did 6 years ago. I love dual CPU systems, I just don't know if I can keep justifying the extra cost, when I can get a single CPU system that's faster for games at h alf the price. My home system is an AthlonXP2500+, the machine I'm writing this on is a 2x AthlonMP 1800+. Like you say, for a single task, the 2500+ gets the job done more quickly. However, when I need to run multiple apps at once, the dually is far more responsive, letting *me* get more done. As an example, I occasionally scan all of the office machines for viruses. A single-CPU machine, even a fast one, is pretty unresponsive while I do it. The dually, though, acts as if nothing were happening at all. The machine doesn't necessarily do more, but it lets *me* do more. At home? I tend not to do stuff like that. It's either email, a terminal, or a game, so the 2500+ does the best job for me. So, decide what apps you're going to use, and choose the best machine for that use. It's not that tough. : ) steve |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Ultimately, I'd like to wait until Doom 3 is released, and make my purchase then. I don't expect a huge difference between AMD / Intel top of the line single CPU performance. But I think there could be some significant differences in video cards. But it's taking quite a while and I don't want to stay on a dual P3-800 forever. I may have to just go ahead and buy a system sooner. One more snippet - I'm also eager for Doom 3. I upgraded my CPU/mobo/RAM just this week, believing that the XP-M 2500+ (actually running at 3200+ speeds) will be fine for Doom 3, and I could use a bit more speed for some of the games I play right now. However, as D3 seems to be able to overwhelm even the fastest video cards, I'm waiting until I have the game in my hand to upgrade the video. Speeds will only go up, and prices will only go down! steve |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Steve Wolfe" wrote in
: Ultimately, I'd like to wait until Doom 3 is released, and make my purchase then. I don't expect a huge difference between AMD / Intel top of the line single CPU performance. But I think there could be some significant differences in video cards. But it's taking quite a while and I don't want to stay on a dual P3-800 forever. I may have to just go ahead and buy a system sooner. One more snippet - I'm also eager for Doom 3. I upgraded my CPU/mobo/RAM just this week, believing that the XP-M 2500+ (actually running at 3200+ speeds) will be fine for Doom 3, and I could use a bit more speed for some of the games I play right now. However, as D3 seems to be able to overwhelm even the fastest video cards, I'm waiting until I have the game in my hand to upgrade the video. Speeds will only go up, and prices will only go down! Yep, I know what you mean. With a system running at 3200+ speeds, the waiting isn't quite as bad I bet. That's the biggest thing holding me back right now, and the only thing that keeps me waiting is telling myself exactly what you said. Faster cards. Lower prices. I identify what you're saying about a dual system being more responsive too. Everything GUI oriented just seems to respond that much quicker when the system is loaded. As you said, it might not be doing anything faster at least on any benchmark, but it definately seems that the GUI gets a chance to respond faster to the user. I was able to rip all my MP3s in a huge batch, and had 2 instances of LAME running at any given time, while still surfing the web, reading newsgroups, newsgroup downloads, kazaa and edonkey downloads, all at the same time, and the system still seemed responsive. I'm wondering what it will be like going to something like a 3400+. I'm positive individual tasks will run faster, but I wonder how it will behave when I get it loaded up with all that stuff running at once. To be fair, each generation of OS has multitasked more smoothly than the one before it. Win2K definately seemed better than NT4.0 to me. After a brief trial of XP, I went to Server 2003. I definately prefer Server 2003, it seems to multitask the smoothest yet. It also seems to page to disk a lot less than XP. Even with 1GB ram, XP seemed to hit the disk a lot. That never seems to happen with 2003. I have Terminal Services Admin mode running on the current system (dual P3-800) and so I can access it remotely to start up downloads, etc. Worst case if I buy single CPU system and find it doesn't multitask well, I can always Remote Desktop into this old system to fire up the type of batch jobs that run for hours and days. Ripping, format conversions, P2P and newsgroup downloads, etc. If instead I went to a slower, more affordable dual-cpu system, there is basically nothing I could do to speed it up for games. Thanks again for the tips! Much appreciated. Add one more person to the list of people waiting for Doom 3. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Mr. Grinch" wrote in message
3.159... I've been comparing AMD64 3400+, AMD FX-51, Opteron 244, and Opteron 246. To go for a single Opteron 246 (2.0 ghz) , I'm looking at almost 2x the cost of a 3400+ (2.2 ghz). To get the costs closer, I'd have to look at a single Opteron 244 (1.8ghz). And then hope that prices for Opterons drop to something reasonable before they go off the market, so that I can eventually upgrade to dual. I doubt they will 'officially'. Server chips simply tend to get replaced. I'm leaning towards AMD instead of Intel this time around. It seems they offer the best price / performance for both single and dual cpu systems. I can at least come close to the price of AMD duals. Intel Dual Xeons just seem to stretch the price difference out even more. Again, the dual systems for both are using slower bus rates, older chips, etc, than the current single cpu systems. ?!?!?! I certainly wouldn't call Opteron 248s slow by any stretch of the imagination. Or "slower bus rates" Or "older chips" Alun Harford |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Mr. Grinch wrote:
If anyone can suggest a better forum to post this question please let me know. Thanks. http://forums.2cpu.com/ gtoomey |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Alun Harford" wrote in
: "Mr. Grinch" wrote in message 3.159... I've been comparing AMD64 3400+, AMD FX-51, Opteron 244, and Opteron 246. To go for a single Opteron 246 (2.0 ghz) , I'm looking at almost 2x the cost of a 3400+ (2.2 ghz). To get the costs closer, I'd have to look at a single Opteron 244 (1.8ghz). And then hope that prices for Opterons drop to something reasonable before they go off the market, so that I can eventually upgrade to dual. I doubt they will 'officially'. Server chips simply tend to get replaced. I agree. That's the problem with trying to build a dual is that you get forced into server pricing which never seems to drop. It didn't used to be like this in the ppro, P2, and P3 days, but it is now. I'm leaning towards AMD instead of Intel this time around. It seems they offer the best price / performance for both single and dual cpu systems. I can at least come close to the price of AMD duals. Intel Dual Xeons just seem to stretch the price difference out even more. Again, the dual systems for both are using slower bus rates, older chips, etc, than the current single cpu systems. ?!?!?! I certainly wouldn't call Opteron 248s slow by any stretch of the imagination. Or "slower bus rates" Or "older chips" Here are some examples of what I can get locally, these numbers are off a local retail web site: Intel Xeon 3.06ghz 512k cache, 533FSB, $730, vs P4 3.40ghz 512k cache, 800FSB, $630. Comparing Intel single vs dual cpu systems, it costs less to get a faster single cpu on a newer, faster bus, than it does for an older, dual cpu system on an older, slower bus rate. Same goes for AMD. A64 3400+ 2.2ghz, 1mb L2, 1600mhz hypertransport bus, $590. 9.8GB/Sec mem bandwidth vs. Opteron 246, 2.0ghz, 1mb L2, 1600mhz hypertransport bus, 6.4gb/sec mem bandwidth per cpu (total 12.8), $1150. The AMD desktop chip has the higher chip speed. The Opteron MB have the same basic memory bandwidth... to do better you have to go for another desktop chip, FX51, which has twice the memory bandwidth for a single cpu. FX51 is still cheaper than Opteron 245, at $1140. Again, the dual chips are clocked slower than the desktop chips, and come with a slower FSB compared to the FX51. Benchmarks will go in favour of one system vs another depending on cpu and memory bandwidth required, but in the end, you're still paying more for a chip that isn't faster for most things. It's like you said, it's the server market, and the pricing just isn't as competitive. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Mr. Grinch" wrote in message
3.159... Same goes for AMD. A64 3400+ 2.2ghz, 1mb L2, 1600mhz hypertransport bus, $590. 9.8GB/Sec mem bandwidth vs. Opteron 246, 2.0ghz, 1mb L2, 1600mhz hypertransport bus, 6.4gb/sec mem bandwidth per cpu (total 12.8), $1150. An A64 3400+ is just a crippled Opteron. The AMD desktop chip has the higher chip speed. The Opteron MB have the same basic memory bandwidth... to do better you have to go for another desktop chip, FX51, which has twice the memory bandwidth for a single cpu. FX51 is still cheaper than Opteron 245, at $1140. . The FX51 is the Opteron 148 under a different name for marketting reasons. It's exactly the same chip. Alun Harford |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
I'm still running my Tyan Tiger 100 S1832DL with a single Celeron 366Mhz.
The plan was to wait for P-IIIs to drop in price and go dual. P-IIIs never dropped in price, so I never upgraded to dual. It re-taught me, never buy hardware in anticipation of anything. IMHO, wait until you need it, then buy what's best. With 1GB RAM and a decent video card, the only reason I can think of to upgrade the system is because of video intensive things (games), but I don't play many anymore, or video capture/processing, which I setup to run overnight. If you're upgrading to play Doom III, I'd say you have the right idea in waiting until the game's (just about to be) released. Over time, options increase, and prices go down. It also looks like you have the 1vs2 CPU pricing situation down as well. For the money you can spend on a decent 2CPU machine, you can get an outstanding 1CPU system. The problem is that you can generally only use the 2nd CPU on fairly rare situations. For the price difference between Opteron 240 and a dual MB and Athlon64 3000 and MB, you could bump up the CPU and/or video card to make a significant difference on a gaming machine. It would seem for current games at least, you're better off scraping pennies for the video card as opposed to the CPU or anything else. As far as another place to ask opinions, 2CPU.com has already been mentioned. Also previously mentioned was AMD talking about dual core opterons being pin compatible with current chips, but that probably means buying a single CPU Opteron MB now and a moderately slower Opteron CPU as opposed to an A64. I'd argue that if you really wanted the dual-core, you could sell your A64 setup to help pay for your future Opteron setup. good luck |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"News" wrote in
: I'm still running my Tyan Tiger 100 S1832DL with a single Celeron 366Mhz. The plan was to wait for P-IIIs to drop in price and go dual. P-IIIs never dropped in price, so I never upgraded to dual. It re-taught me, never buy hardware in anticipation of anything. IMHO, wait until you need it, then buy what's best. I guess I was lucky! P3-800s were selling here for $300 canadian each when I got them. But I think you're right, as far as the future goes, it isn't likely to happen again. The market's been segmented into PC vs Server. The low-cost dual cpu workstation seems to be a dying breed. But I hope I'm wrong! The S1832DL was a pretty nice board in it's day. I don't think I could have done any better with anything else. I wish it supported the faster P3s after the 850mhz. I looked into those P3 1.4ghz upgrade kits but the vendors say they don't work on dual-cpu boards. Looks like you might be able to buy some P3 for cheap off ebay if you're wanting to sqeeze any more out of that box. I can see why you would just want put any resources into the a new system though. http://tinyurl.com/yry4k If you're upgrading to play Doom III, I'd say you have the right idea in waiting until the game's (just about to be) released. Over time, options increase, and prices go down. Thanks for the confirmation. Sometimes you have an idea of how things are going to turn out, but you don't really know because you don't hear a lot from other people asking the same question. So it's good to hear if you're on the right track, or of people are telling you're way off base and have been living in a cave. For the price difference between Opteron 240 and a dual MB and Athlon64 3000 and MB, you could bump up the CPU and/or video card to make a significant difference on a gaming machine. It would seem for current games at least, you're better off scraping pennies for the video card as opposed to the CPU or anything else. The coming NV40 vs R420 battle looks to be interesting. Through in the wait for Doom 3 and HalfLife 2, and PCI Express. Should be a riot! I'd like to wait until the dust has settled if I can. If not, I'll try and make whatever I get in the meantime as cheap and disposable as possible, while getting the most I can out of the old system as a server. Thanks again for the info! It's much appreciated. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
dual CPU set-up/ | john_D | General | 6 | January 16th 05 12:28 AM |
KVM switching between dual monitor systems? | J.Clarke | General | 1 | October 30th 03 09:02 PM |
Mushkin PC3200 1Gb Dual Packs from Fry's | DW | General | 3 | September 24th 03 10:37 AM |
Mushkin PC3200 1Gb Dual Packs from Fry's | DW | Overclocking | 3 | September 24th 03 10:37 AM |
P4P800 Dual DDR Issue | Jesse | Overclocking | 1 | July 19th 03 02:36 AM |