PDA

View Full Version : Negative side of Dual Core?

Phayzon
10-07-2006, 04:19 PM
As some of you know, I am looking to upgrade my Athlon64 3500+ to an X2 4400+ or 4800+ this Christmas. So I was wondering, are there any negative side effects to having a dual core CPU? Such as incompatibility with some programs.

Thanks :)
Kevin Wolff
10-07-2006, 04:22 PM
I can't imagine anything like that. If a program only works with one CPU, that's all the OS will allocate to it. The only down side I can think of is, when it comes to using single-threaded apps, you pay the same amount for a lower clock speed dual-core chip as a higher clock speed single-core chip. That's a big reason that dual core isn't recommended for gaming (although if you do other, supported things, that can be outweighed).
Phayzon
10-07-2006, 04:25 PM
IIRC, the 4400+ is the same as 2 3700+'s, which would obviously be better than my current 3500+. With the 4800+ being even faster. ;)

I stand to be corrected :)
Damien_Azreal
10-07-2006, 04:42 PM
Some older games have difficulties running properly on dual core CPUs. System Shock 2 doesn't run on dual core, Soldier of Fortune would crash often and have very odd performance.

That's the only complaint I have and other's have had.
FireFly
10-07-2006, 05:08 PM
IIRC, the 4400+ is the same as 2 3700+'s, which would obviously be better than my current 3500+. With the 4800+ being even faster. ;)
Yes. And the X2 4800+ is equivalent to the single core 4000+

Some older games have difficulties running properly on dual core CPUs. System Shock 2 doesn't run on dual core, Soldier of Fortune would crash often and have very odd performance.

That's the only complaint I have and other's have had.
Can't you solve that by changing the affinity (so the program is only assigned one core)?
Jokke_r
10-07-2006, 05:46 PM
yes you can
Damien_Azreal
10-07-2006, 07:55 PM
You can... but in System Shock 2 that didn't solve the problem. It'll work on some games, but on some older games it won't.

I had to find a certain patch to fix my copy.
Phayzon
10-07-2006, 08:31 PM
Ok then. I dont have SS2 anyway :p If I ever do get Ill just run it on my AthlonXP rig. :)
Jiminator
10-07-2006, 08:41 PM
amd has released a patch that fixes most of their issues. i have not noticed any problems in any games recently. there used to be problems with the energy saving + load balancing, windows would split single threaded tasks to both cpus, then see that the cpus were underutilized and then throttle them back, causing a vicious cycle.... anyway, problems similar to that should be resolved.
tony
10-07-2006, 09:11 PM
With the dual core Pentium D Dells at work, you can disable the second core in the bios. I'd imagine that they're not the only ones that allow that.
Kevin Wolff
10-07-2006, 09:29 PM
IIRC, the 4400+ is the same as 2 3700+'s, which would obviously be better than my current 3500+. With the 4800+ being even faster. ;)
I didn't say it was faster/slower than your current chip. I said it was slower for the same price, assuming use of only one core.
Phayzon
10-07-2006, 09:31 PM
Oh, right. :)
Jiminator
10-07-2006, 11:35 PM
With the dual core Pentium D Dells at work, you can disable the second core in the bios. I'd imagine that they're not the only ones that allow that. oh yes, that's an appealing option. :confused:
tony
10-08-2006, 02:56 AM
oh yes, that's an appealing option. :confused:

If disabling the second core prevents a application you want to run from crashing, then yes?

Though, I dont really see how the second core will cause problems.. I've virtually been using dual-proc machines exclusively for almost the past 8 years, and I've never had problems with things not running because of it (excluding the things that wouldnt run in NT4 because they needed 9x)

The OS should view hyperthreading the same as a second core, so most every P4 would have the same problems.
Boinky
10-11-2006, 05:31 PM
You can also set CPU affinity btw. So if you only want one core to run processes you can set it to only run on one :)
Phayzon
10-12-2006, 04:39 PM
One last question :)

Im trying to find out if my motherboard supports Athlon64 X2's or not (major concern!). My motherboard is an ASUS A8N-SLi, Im pretty sure its the basic (ie, not Deluxe or Premium) flavor, but Ill check when I get a chance. ASUS no longer has info on this board on their website, and the info on the Deluxe/Premium doesnt say they support the X2's, but Im pretty sure ive read that people with those boards have X2's. So, does my board actually support the Athlon64 X2's?

EDIT: Ok, the Premium and Deluxe do support the X2s, still unsure about the basic.
Bludd
10-12-2006, 04:44 PM
http://www.asus.com/products4.aspx?l1=3&l2=15&l3=148&model=382&modelmenu=1

You, Phayzon, are blind. :)

Edit: Here's a list of all the CPUs the A8N-SLI supports and the BIOS update that brought support for a given CPU:
http://support.asus.com/cpusupport/cpusupport.aspx?SLanguage=en-us
Phayzon
10-12-2006, 05:05 PM
What the hell? Ive been getting this (http://usa.asus.com/products3.aspx?l1=3&l2=15&l3=148&slname=NVIDIA%20nForce4%20SLI) the whole time; See? No basic flavor. Ive even searched A8N-SLi on their site!

Anyway, thanks :)
FireFly
10-12-2006, 05:31 PM
The X2 line just requires a bios update.
Bludd
10-13-2006, 02:04 AM
What the hell? Ive been getting this (http://usa.asus.com/products3.aspx?l1=3&l2=15&l3=148&slname=NVIDIA%20nForce4%20SLI) the whole time; See? No basic flavor. Ive even searched A8N-SLi on their site!

Anyway, thanks :)

Enter the global site, it's got more shit.
Phayzon
10-13-2006, 02:01 PM
So I see :)
Phayzon
10-19-2006, 02:45 PM
So not to put the 3500+ to waste when my XP2200+ system well, sucks, Ive been looking into a cheap Socket939 board with AGP (Even a cheap PCI-e card is too much, its an old system, Id rather not dump money into it). The only board that has what im looking for (that I could find), is this one (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813131558). Good or bad?
moron
10-19-2006, 08:43 PM
I use one of these on board video for just basic stuff but a pci express slot for if you want another gaming system later (or if you upgrade your video card you could pass it on) nice overclocking options as well (its out of stock I know)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813138264
Phayzon
10-20-2006, 01:28 PM
Looks nice, I'll give it some thought. Though this will probably make the decision right here:

Onboard 6100 or
AGP8x FX5500 256MB ?
Bludd
10-29-2006, 01:12 AM
Ugh, neither? First is horrible, second is horrible buts should be faster than the first.
Hudson
10-29-2006, 04:34 AM
Dual cores really shine when you use programs designed to take advantage of multiple threads (Adobe does this). Other than that, you will obviously still get a good performance increase (especially considering you're upgrading from 3500+ to a 4400+).
Hudson
10-29-2006, 04:35 AM
Looks nice, I'll give it some thought. Though this will probably make the decision right here:

Onboard 6100 or
AGP8x FX5500 256MB ?

Onboard sucks, and the latter card is bad.

If you have PCI-E go for a 7XXX series (some of the lower end, like the 7300 are pretty cheap), if not find something along the lines (or above) a 6800GT.. If memory serves they make a 7XXX series card in AGP.
Phayzon
10-29-2006, 10:23 AM
Ok, so I ordered up a 4800+. As of now I decided against a mobo for the old 3500+, so for now my secondary system will remain XP2200+.