Athlon 64 X2 4800+ Reviews...

[jamesclarke555]

Dual core baby

• AnandTech
• BitTech
• SimHQ
• Sudhian Media
• Techware Labs
• TrustedReviews
• Xbit Labs

[jtwn]

Niice set of reviews there

Well, they show nothing impressive vs single core (3800/FX55) imo, apart from that wmv encoding. Can't wait to see how it runs with multi-threaded games.

Where we will get the most benefit is with multi tasking
Imagine being able ro recode video while being able to play a game with no glitches,each core will do its own job.I personally can't wait and think once the software is available to use both cores ,It will be awesome

[philip.j.fry]

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

Where we will get the most benefit is with multi tasking
Imagine being able ro recode video while being able to play a game with no glitches,each core will do its own job.I personally can't wait and think once the software is available to use both cores ,It will be awesome

I'm guessing you haven't updated your operating system for the last 40 years then

[Bifta]

Originally Posted by philip.j.fry

I'm guessing you haven't updated your operating system for the last 40 years then

I'm guessing you've never tried playing a game that normally uses a huge amount of CPU cycles while trying to encode.

actually Im running xp pro64 running a 3800 chip and I still have to sit around when a large zip opens or video compresses anything that really loads the cpu.
So when theres 2 cores this load will be distibuted or there will be core 2 spare for other things,I defy anyone to recode video and try to smoothly play a game

[philip.j.fry]

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

actually Im running xp pro64 running a 3800 chip and I still have to sit around when a large zip opens or video compresses anything that really loads the cpu.

It was more in replay to this comment:

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

I personally can't wait and think once the software is available to use both cores

Because we already have the software for multi-threading/tasking/processing. The only software that needs to know about the dual-core is the OS, user space software will automatically take advantage of the extra processor. The major impact that this will have is in cost, it's already possible to buy multi-processor systems but the cost is prohibitive (though I imagine there are some benefits to be had in terms of latencies between the processors).

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by philip.j.fry

Because we already have the software for multi-threading/tasking/processing. The only software that needs to know about the dual-core is the OS, user space software will automatically take advantage of the extra processor. The major impact that this will have is in cost, it's already possible to buy multi-processor systems but the cost is prohibitive (though I imagine there are some benefits to be had in terms of latencies between the processors).

That software has to be designed to efficiently run with multiple threads to really benefit. For instance, if you run premiere 5 (which is not optimised for multiple processors) on a MP (or presumably, Dual core) mavhine, it will only use one CPU. If you run Premiere 6 on the same machine, you will get a 70% speed increase, as Premiere 6 is optimised for multiprocessor use. Hyperthreading gives Premiere 6 a similar, but lesser boost.

Not sure about now, but I do remember reading that a while back (when Quake 3 was released), very few games were optimised for MP use.

[philip.j.fry]

Originally Posted by scastle

That software has to be designed to efficiently run with multiple threads to really benefit. For instance, if you run premiere 5 (which is not optimised for multiple processors) on a MP (or presumably, Dual core) mavhine, it will only use one CPU. If you run Premiere 6 on the same machine, you will get a 70% speed increase, as Premiere 6 is optimised for multiprocessor use. Hyperthreading gives Premiere 6 a similar, but lesser boost.

Not sure about now, but I do remember reading that a while back (when Quake 3 was released), very few games were optimised for MP use.

It's not generally the software that gets optimised for MP (though it is possible), it's the OS. A software engineer will design their program utilising multiple threads/processes (Posix, Java threads etc), it is then the OS that decides how and when these threads/processes will run (the Scheduler). Therefore, as long as the OS is built to take into account MP, any threaded program should automatically take advantage of an extra processor.

The software has to be encoded to use both cores at the same time,the software we are using now will not utilise both cores,(ie 1 running process using both cores),
I believe Multi processing units do not have twin core but 2 cpus which does 1 thing each not shared ie 1 task using both cpus

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by philip.j.fry

It's not generally the software that gets optimised for MP (though it is possible), it's the OS. A software engineer will design their program utilising multiple threads/processes (Posix, Java threads etc), it is then the OS that decides how and when these threads/processes will run (the Scheduler). Therefore, as long as the OS is built to take into account MP, any threaded program should automatically take advantage of an extra processor.

True, as I discovered when I ran Word on a MP machine (we have a few dotted around the uni), it ran on both CPUs (I think it was doing the background spell check on CPU 2). Actually, my own results with Premiere back up what you said. The video rendering engine on Premiere 6 is fully multi threaded, so sees a big performance boost (not quite 100% as there are overheads), whereas the rendering engine in Premiere 5 ran in a single thread.

Still, as has been pointed out before, Dual cores will help multitasking with two processor intensive processes, even if those processes are single threaded.
__________________

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

The software has to be encoded to use both cores at the same time,the software we are using now will not utilise both cores,(ie 1 running process using both cores),
I believe Multi processing units do not have twin core but 2 cpus which does 1 thing each not shared ie 1 task using both cpus

If it works the same way Hyperthreading does (and I read somewhere it will), then the each core will appear to be a seperate CPU to the OS.

Originally Posted by scastle

.snip


If it works the same way Hyperthreading does (and I read somewhere it will), then the each core will appear to be a seperate CPU to the OS.

Yes this is my understanding of the setup
I have read in a lot of reviews of this that games etc will need to be written to fully utilise both cores,but in real world computing its gotta be a plus to have 2 working processes not sharing clock cycles
It was my understanding that hyper threading used spare clock cycles to run extra code and take pressure off the main task,although hyperthreading was a plus when it first came about it never truely acted as 2 cpus just appeared to

Interestingly the normal spec intel dual core chips do not hyperthread so if there was no benefit over hyperthreading why bother
The Intel extreme versions do hyperthread showing 4 virtual cpus in taskmanager

[philip.j.fry]

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

The software has to be encoded to use both cores at the same time,the software we are using now will not utilise both cores,(ie 1 running process using both cores),
I believe Multi processing units do not have twin core but 2 cpus which does 1 thing each not shared ie 1 task using both cpus

Multiprocessing is almost exactly the same thing, except with a multi-core CPU both processors are housed on the same chip. The software (including games) that we have now will utilise a multi-processing unit, but you are right in that we will see more mp optimised versions (due to lowered costs of dual core so greater uptake) as threads in the software will be broken down for concurrent programming.

I wasn't questioning the benefit of it all, just the assertion that we don't already have the software to do (hence about 40 years ago for the introduction of multi-tasking OS's)

[Richard M]

Well, put it this way.
I've seen benchmarks so far which use Prime95 to use both cores to 50% (100% for a single CPU)
This (load balancing) is the ideal way to do it IMO because you will still have at least 50% of one core to play games on.
SETI running 24/7 anyone?

My next upgrade will probably include one of these chips, I've already found a buyer for my Athlon64 FX.