StarDestroyer.Net BBS

So, a question for everyone, as I am unable to come to any logical conclusion on my own due to lack of any experience or useful benchmarks on the web.

I'm trying to decide on getting a Dual Core Intel (820) or a Single Core A64 3000+ for my parents. The difference in $$$ is only about $50 bucks (mostly since I can get a motherboard with a built-in video card on the Intel side of things), so there are no real worries there.

I am concerned with which will perform better for them overall. Their typical usage is thus:

- Windows XP
- Web surfing / Email (Firefox + Gmail)
- Photo Manipulation / Digital Photography / Scanning (Picassa and Photoshop and various other freeware)
- Office Tasks (MS Office)
- Video importing and editing (External Encoder with Pinnacle Studio, though I'm trying to find them something better to use)

Background tasks:

- Zone Alarm (Free Version)
- AVG virus scanner (possibly Norton in the future)
- Background loaders for Kodak Camera and Scanner
- Potentially a resident Spyware scanner

So, anyone have any insite to share? I know the dual core will help to some degree with the background tasks, but enough to actually be faster than the much faster AMD core? Also, is any of the software mentioned multi-threaded and able to make use of a dual core processor?

As I said, I'm not really concerned about money with this, just which will be a better rig for them given their usage.

Edit:

If Mod could correct my title I could appreciate it a lot =)

Thanks,
Miles Teg

The video and photo editing may well be helped out by a dual-core CPU and the background tasks should help out as well.

Duel core all the way, while each task might run SLIGHTLY slower, duel core will help general preformance and esspecially in the video editing. My experiance with AMD's and video editing has been bad.

Athlons are performance chips. Dual core is designed for smoother, consistent system activity. Obviously, the latter choice is best for casual PC users... go with the dual core, I say.

Miles Teg wrote:So, a question for everyone, as I am unable to come to any logical conclusion on my own due to lack of any experience or useful benchmarks on the web.

I'm trying to decide on getting a Dual Core Intel (820) or a Single Core A64 3000+ for my parents. The difference in $$$ is only about $50 bucks (mostly since I can get a motherboard with a built-in video card on the Intel side of things), so there are no real worries there.

I am concerned with which will perform better for them overall. Their typical usage is thus:

- Windows XP
- Web surfing / Email (Firefox + Gmail)
- Photo Manipulation / Digital Photography / Scanning (Picassa and Photoshop and various other freeware)
- Office Tasks (MS Office)
- Video importing and editing (External Encoder with Pinnacle Studio, though I'm trying to find them something better to use)

Background tasks:

- Zone Alarm (Free Version)
- AVG virus scanner (possibly Norton in the future)
- Background loaders for Kodak Camera and Scanner
- Potentially a resident Spyware scanner

So, anyone have any insite to share? I know the dual core will help to some degree with the background tasks, but enough to actually be faster than the much faster AMD core? Also, is any of the software mentioned multi-threaded and able to make use of a dual core processor?

As I said, I'm not really concerned about money with this, just which will be a better rig for them given their usage.

Edit:

If Mod could correct my title I could appreciate it a lot =)

Thanks,
Miles Teg

If you have XP Home, BUY THE SINGLE CORE! XP Home doesn't support multiple processors, if I remember right.


Things that do better with single faster core:

- Windows XP Home
- Web surfing / Email (Firefox + Gmail)
- Office Tasks (MS Office)

Simply because I doubt they are multithreaded.

Things that do better with multiple cores:

- Photo Manipulation / Digital Photography / Scanning (Picassa and Photoshop and various other freeware)

- Video importing and editing (External Encoder with Pinnacle Studio, though I'm trying to find them something better to use)

Well, don't you usually do web browsing and office tasks simultaneousl/


...tsk tsk, people talking about running dual core for office tasks, as if they weren't fast enough...

Praxis, not sure about the XP home and multi-core, but its not the Preformance benefit but the usability benefit, things just flow better with a pair of processors.

Spoofe, Not sure where your going, duel core also has uses in games, and there are athlon duel cores, just not at the Intel budget price.

Lastly, Miles, in a few days(IIRC) Intel is releasing a new extra-low end processor, allowing you to save more money.

Tiger Ace wrote: Lastly, Miles, in a few days(IIRC) Intel is releasing a new extra-low end processor, allowing you to save more money.

Any idea where it will set in the processor lineup compared to an 820? I wouldn't really care for something less powerful at single threaded apps. Besides, as I said, the money isn't the problem (though I never mind saving it anyway).

Miles Teg

This definitely sounds you could use a dual-core rather than single core, which would be mostly unnecessary unless you are into playing a lot of games. You're probably not going to notice the single-threaded difference for other things. You should also make sure you have a fast HDD which is an even bigger bottleneck than the CPU in a lot of cases. Namely everytime something is loading.

Windows XP Home will support dual-core processors, IIRC. What it won't do is support two cores on separate processors. Microsoft's policy regarding number of cores and processor licenses is actually one of the more liberal ones in the industry.

Miles Teg wrote:

Tiger Ace wrote: Lastly, Miles, in a few days(IIRC) Intel is releasing a new extra-low end processor, allowing you to save more money.

Any idea where it will set in the processor lineup compared to an 820? I wouldn't really care for something less powerful at single threaded apps. Besides, as I said, the money isn't the problem (though I never mind saving it anyway).

Miles Teg

200MHZ less, so thats 2.6GHZ, and it will be fast enough for normal work.

Spoofe, Not sure where your going, duel core also has uses in games

Only indirectly, by allowing you to run background programs while playing, being able to devote the entirety of a core towards the gaming task.

and there are athlon duel cores, just not at the Intel budget price.

Since games are still single-threaded, it's generally considered wiser to get a faster single-core chip, like the Athlon FX line, for enthusiast gaming.

Dual core, as long as you can keep it quiet. Parents hate noisy computers. Intel has a bad track record for heat and with dual core the noise might become downright scary so you might want to consider a big, slow fan - like a Zalman.

Spoofe, what I meant is that the Athlon duel cores do not show any preformance change compared to a single core and that I'd take them unless there is a massive premium.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "massive premium". Near as I can tell, the cheapest Athlon X2 is more than double the price of the cheapest Pentium D. For a casual PC user, I would humbly submit that a $300 greater price would, indeed, constitute a "massive premium".

SPOOFE wrote:I guess it depends on what you mean by "massive premium". Near as I can tell, the cheapest Athlon X2 is more than double the price of the cheapest Pentium D. For a casual PC user, I would humbly submit that a $300 greater price would, indeed, constitute a "massive premium".

Yes, I agree, though for a casual PC user(unless his hearing is gone or you invest in an after-market HSF), the noise and heat from a duel core Pentium is intolerable.

Then again, I'm sticking with single core, sue me

phongn wrote:Windows XP Home will support dual-core processors, IIRC. What it won't do is support two cores on separate processors. Microsoft's policy regarding number of cores and processor licenses is actually one of the more liberal ones in the industry.

Actually, no it can't. This is not because of a license problem, but because MS actually has two versions of the XP kernel, the SMP kernel and the single core kernel. The single core kernel isn't capable of supporting multiple processors, and I don't see how anyone has managed to get around this. Hell, you can't even patch XP Pro to run the SMP kernel if it was installed on a signel core system since the instaler automatically chooses which kernel to install based on the system you have.

Since CMP and SMP require the same kernel-level support, XP Home shouldn't be able to run dual core chips.

That reminds me of the old days running dual Pentium-Pro systems. I had to reinstall Windows NT from scratch if I installed a second CPU, or it wouldn't use it.

Even Linux requires a different kernel if you want to go from single-CPU to multi-CPU, although you can just install the new kernel alongside the old one and then just select it at the next reboot rather than reinstalling the entire OS.

Darth Wong wrote:That reminds me of the old days running dual Pentium-Pro systems. I had to reinstall Windows NT from scratch if I installed a second CPU, or it wouldn't use it.

Even Linux requires a different kernel if you want to go from single-CPU to multi-CPU, although you can just install the new kernel alongside the old one and then just select it at the next reboot rather than reinstalling the entire OS.

Considering that Windows XP uses the NT kernel, that's not all that surprising.

The Kernel wrote:Hell, you can't even patch XP Pro to run the SMP kernel if it was installed on a signel core system since the instaler automatically chooses which kernel to install based on the system you have.

Darth Wong wrote:That reminds me of the old days running dual Pentium-Pro systems. I had to reinstall Windows NT from scratch if I installed a second CPU, or it wouldn't use it.

At some point, Microsoft added support for switching from a single-proc HAL to a multi-proc HAL.

HOW TO: Add Support for Multiple Processors in Windows 2000

Presumably, there'd be a way to do this in XP Pro as well.

The Kernel wrote:Actually, no it can't. This is not because of a license problem, but because MS actually has two versions of the XP kernel, the SMP kernel and the single core kernel. The single core kernel isn't capable of supporting multiple processors, and I don't see how anyone has managed to get around this. Hell, you can't even patch XP Pro to run the SMP kernel if it was installed on a signel core system since the instaler automatically chooses which kernel to install based on the system you have.

OTOH XP Home supports HyperThreading, which IIRC is supported via the multiprocessor kernel. Also, since Windows 2000 you could switch kernels from uniprocessor to multiprocessor without a reinstallation via the Device Manager.

Darth Wong wrote:That reminds me of the old days running dual Pentium-Pro systems. I had to reinstall Windows NT from scratch if I installed a second CPU, or it wouldn't use it.

There was actually a tool in the NT Resource Kit called uptomp that would do the work of moving NT to a non-uniprocessor kernel.

phongn wrote: OTOH XP Home supports HyperThreading, which IIRC is supported via the multiprocessor kernel. Also, since Windows 2000 you could switch kernels from uniprocessor to multiprocessor without a reinstallation via the Device Manager.

I knew about the Win2000 kernel switch capability, although I didn't realize it was officially supported by Microsoft.

Anyway, I figured the easiest way to check if Windows XP Home supports the SMP kernel was to try to configure a Dell machine with both a dual core chip and Windows XP Home. Low and behold, it actually puts XP Home as standard on their Intel 8xx machines. Color me corrected.

I guess Microsoft must have slipped in something that automatically switches the kernel over in SP1, because it sure as hell wasn't in there with Windows XP RTM.

The Kernel wrote:I guess Microsoft must have slipped in something that automatically switches the kernel over in SP1, because it sure as hell wasn't in there with Windows XP RTM.

Well, Dell can preload an image however they want so they probably configure Windows XP Home with the ACPI Multiprocessor kernel on any box with SMT or SMP.

phongn wrote:

The Kernel wrote:I guess Microsoft must have slipped in something that automatically switches the kernel over in SP1, because it sure as hell wasn't in there with Windows XP RTM.

Well, Dell can preload an image however they want so they probably configure Windows XP Home with the ACPI Multiprocessor kernel on any box with SMT or SMP.

Hmmm, you think the retail and plain Jane OEM copies support this in the Home Edition? Without mucking about with Microsoft's help files I mean.

The Kernel wrote:Hmmm, you think the retail and plain Jane OEM copies support this in the Home Edition? Without mucking about with Microsoft's help files I mean.

Probably not the RTM releases but if you slipstream SP2 on it should work ... otherwise you have to change your computer type.