Do I need to go Dual Core

[regal]

I have a 3.0 GHZ intel with at the time the top of the line ASUS MB. I dual core pentium will plug right in.

I did overclock to 3.5 (I have one of those huge copper heatsinks) but I didn't see much benefit and I had some very intermentent stability problems.

I do use EAC and encode to Flac, I also rip audio off music DVD's. I do this while listening to music played thru the computer.

Will I have any real gains by going to a dual core? If so which is the better deal/overclocker?

 

[Iron_Dreamer]

I'd get the new Core 2 Duo, either E6300 or 6400, as they are much easier to come by, and overclock better than their 4MB cache counterparts. Everything so far seems to indicate these processors are a huge improvement over Intel's past chips. If your computer feels slow, and you have the money, I see no reason not to give one a shot.

 

[lan]

Ripping audio and listening to music is not very processor intensive. Your P4 has hyperthreading since it's one of the socket 775 ones. That should be enough to keep the system pretty responsive. Dual core is better if you were really doing a lot of stuff at once.

 

[nelamvr6]

As of right now there is very little software that can effectively exploit multiple core CPU's. But that will hopefully change soon.

I have been running a dual-core Athlon 64 for many months. I chose a dual-core in an attempt to future-proof my system somewhat, and also for bragging rights.

I do a lot of multi-tasking, and that improved with the new system. But my previous processor was an AthlonXP, so the improvement I noticed could just as easily have been caused by a processor that was simply faster and all around more powerful. That and the memory I added when I built my new system.

Like Iron_Dreamer said, if you can afford it, have at it! It certainly won't hurt.

 

[Nine']

If you do decide to go dual core, it can be surprisingly cheap...the pentium D 805 is a well known for how well it overclocks, and can be found for ~100$. The stock speed is 2.66, but taking that to a stable 3.6 is possible even with stock cooling and minimal voltage increase. Take a look:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/05/..._41_ghz_cores/

The article managed to get up to 4.1 Ghz, which is pretty amazing for the price.

 

[003]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nelamvr6 As of right now there is very little software that can effectively exploit multiple core CPU's.

Not many PROGRAMS, but windows itself supports it, and it uses both cores. It makes a huge difference with multatasking. You can be encoding a huge dvd or whatever and playing a game and not notice a difference. And you can even set what programs should use what core, or both.

The pentium d is crap, the only good CPU from intel is the core 2 duo, but I'm not sure if you could get one without a motherboard upgrade.

 

[necropimp]

just make sure your motherboard will accept the new processor before buying

 

[soloz2]

you will notice less slow-downs with a dual core than you have with a single core.

I've got 2 socket939 AMD systems I did have a 3200+venice @2.5Ghz and an opteron 148@3Ghz and I upgraded to an opty 165 and moved the 148 to my HTPC and sold the 3200+

I currently have the 165 dual core at 2.8Ghz and actually when I had my 148 I ran it at roughly the same speed for everyday use and I have to say that the dual core is a lot faster. I tend to multitask and I'll leave firefox, aim, outlook and folding @home running while playing games. (yeah my main rig is fast enough to do that and still get good framerates)
I also have folding@home running 2 instances, one on each core and it has propelled my team on oc.net from about last place to one of the top teams in a few months.

I would consider the upgrade if I were you... however, before buying anything new I would seriously consider looking into your OC. it sounds to me like your system is not stable. Even when OC'ing you should have your system configured so that you never have any serious problems. run prime95 for a minimum of 12 hours stress test to determine if your system is stable. I have a feeling that it won't pass the test and you'll need to change some voltages, memory timings or back off your OC just a little bit.

My 165's stock speed is 1.8Ghz (each core) and I've got mine running 2.8Ghz 24/7 it's over 17 hours prime95 stable (running dual instances, one for each core) and I can run it at 3Ghz if I want, but for everyday use 2.8ghz is a happy place to be. It's fast and it doesn't put too much pressure on the cpu.

 

[Uncle Erik]

instead of dual core, have you considered going dual CPU? I just noticed that the Opteron 242 and 244 chips were going for $69 and $79 (boxed, with fan) at Fry's the other day. That's a steal. You can pick up a dual 940 motherboard for $200 or so, too. The only catch is that you have to use registered RAM, but even that is going down. I've seen it around $59 for a 512MB 3200 stick.

I'm not into overclocking (don't game, don't want the risk), but my dual Opteron (246) machine is a monster. It demolishes everything I throw at it; I strongly recommend an Opteron setup. It helps to populate all the RAM banks, since each proc has dual channel memory. Also, all the dual 940 boards are server boards, so they're built to a better spec than most consumer grade stuff.

I don't know how well Windows will utilize the setup, though. I've got Fedora Core 5 running on mine. Linux loves the second proc and 64 bits.

 

[lionel marechal]

As a note, when I convert from lossless format to mp3 with foobar, both cores are used at the same time (it is converting 2 files at the same time, one conversion per code). and in task manager I see both cores going at 100%.

As a second note as well, a guess, if a process uses one core only, it's going to go, a guess, slower than a single core (because the pure power assigned to that process is less).

Lionel

 

[soloz2]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik instead of dual core, have you considered going dual CPU? I just noticed that the Opteron 242 and 244 chips were going for $69 and $79 (boxed, with fan) at Fry's the other day. That's a steal. You can pick up a dual 940 motherboard for $200 or so, too. The only catch is that you have to use registered RAM, but even that is going down. I've seen it around $59 for a 512MB 3200 stick. I'm not into overclocking (don't game, don't want the risk), but my dual Opteron (246) machine is a monster. It demolishes everything I throw at it; I strongly recommend an Opteron setup. It helps to populate all the RAM banks, since each proc has dual channel memory. Also, all the dual 940 boards are server boards, so they're built to a better spec than most consumer grade stuff. I don't know how well Windows will utilize the setup, though. I've got Fedora Core 5 running on mine. Linux loves the second proc and 64 bits.

I'm going to have to disagree with you. While I agree that Optys are great cpus, the average user does not need a dual cpu motherboard. And, the performance benefit would not outweigh the cost to setup something like this. As you said he/she would need a new mobo, 2 new cpus, new RAM and most likely he/she would also need a new psu

And 940 boards while they are server mobos are not built to better specs than consumer boards... they are built to different specs. Yes, there are many cheaply made consumer boards...but there are also cheaply made server boards. And in both my socket939 rigs neither of those mobos are built to a lesser standard then the board in your computer.

Besides when you really want to get down to it the memory controller in the opterons isn't as good as the memory controller built into the regular athlons... that's because opterons are tested and configured for security, not performance. (and yes, I own opterons too)

As for windows, if they have win XP pro then it'll fully use dual cores and/or dual cpus

 

[CSMR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by regal Will I have any real gains by going to a dual core? If so which is the better deal/overclocker?

You have to have objectives before you can assess gains.

 

[regal]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 003 The pentium d is crap, the only good CPU from intel is the core 2 duo, but I'm not sure if you could get one without a motherboard upgrade.

Well I don't want to change out motherboards, the only dual core that will work with my 955x chipset Asus are the D's.

 

[regal]

I just picked up a D 805 for $80. Based on past sales on ebay I can sell my 3.0 530 CPU for at least $50. So for $30 out of pocket I get dual core which can overclock to 3.8 ghz on air.

I would have liked to get the newer conroe chip but my MB just doesn't support it.

 

[soloz2]

the 805 is a good budget OC'er