Dual CPU PC

[Mole]

Been offered the old 'broken' server from work, which had a couple of faulty components, which I replaced, and it works fine, and has done for many weeks.

They have decommissioned it, as they don't want it to do it again, and risk blowing more things, which is unlikely anyway, but I wasn't going to argue.

Would it be of much use to me, and would I get the full use out of it, its a Dual Xeon 2.2ghz PC, AGP slot (8x) 5 PCI slots, 2 x 512mb PC2100 ECC Dimms,IDE & SCSI (No Hard disks included), with a Xeon PSU.

Not sure if Windows will use it to its full advantage, but I could really do with an upgrade anyway and if I can fully utilize the dual cpu's then it could be a fairly good system, as I'm currently stuck on an AMD Athlon XP 1700, 256mb DDR Ram.

Cheers

 

[Griff]

Depends what you want to do but in laymans terms a dual cpu pc for the average home users is a much use as a chocolate teapot.

 

[Mole]

Well I'd like to get back into gaming, but I very much doubt any games support dual cpus. I also do alot of video encoding, which takes ages on my current computer.

I'm guessing that if I were to use it like any average person, I'd still get the full 2.2ghz, as if it was a 1 cpu system?

 

[Darren S]

Like Griff said m8, it all depends on what you want to do with it. The main issue you normally get with servers is their lack of decent graphics and sound support - though your does have AGP x8 which would be useful.

The PC2100 memory wouldn't cut-it for gaming - it would be good enough for supporting the likes of Battlefield 1942, but not Battlefield 2. What it would make as a cracking platform for would be a storage or file server - assuming you got some decent disk capacity in there. I know of a couple of video editing guys and people into the home-studio setups with audio and music. And for that, it would be great.

If the server can run without ECC spec memory, go out and buy as much as you can. Non-ECC is much, much cheaper. Certainly useful with more than 1GB> anyway...

D.

 

[KDF]

Okay you need an OS that can take advantage of 2 CPU's .. lets say ooOo dunno... linux

Then you need to run a game that can take advantage of those dual Xeons.. like ID's lastest Doom (and any other games based on that engine)

 

[wozzaa]

Doom3 cant take advantage of dual cpu's im pretty sure cant take advantage of my 2nd core anyways.

Although a lot of newer games will be supporting multiple cpu's at which point that dual 2.2 will outperform much better spec'd machines.

And windows 2000 or XP can take advantage of both those cpus if you dont fancy going into linux. All that happens in XP is when you go to the task manager you can set which cpu you would like program to use. or can leave it up to windows to decide it will usually assign programs if there running at the same time to a different cpu automatically and to be honest its not too bad at controlling it.

And yes for programs that wont make use of the 2nd core it will just run like you have a single 2.2ghz system but at the same time windows will also assign anything running in the background to the other cpu as i said so you will still get very very slightly better performance out of it in general.

The one thing it will be good at is multitasking if your running a few things at once which a vast majority of people do. Most people say they wouldnt see the benefits of having more than 1 cpu but until they use a dual system properly there normally talking rubbish

I wouldnt go back to using a single CPU now. my work would take a lot longer and just the general feel of the system is much more responsive.

 

[bsimmer3000]

look on future mark and see what the best setups are for gaming and the most powerfull gaming systems. the dual xeon kicks as in every test and they can be over clocked to produce silly power.

 

[Griff]

With respect thats not exactly an accurate synopsis .. The dual xeon's may well do well in the cpu aspect/tests of 3dmark(0?) but as for gaming to say they are the best is simply incorrect.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/11/21/the_mother_of_all_cpu_charts_2005/page24.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/11/21/the_mother_of_all_cpu_charts_2005/page25.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/11/21/the_mother_of_all_cpu_charts_2005/page26.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/11/21/the_mother_of_all_cpu_charts_2005/page27.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/11/21/the_mother_of_all_cpu_charts_2005/page28.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/11/21/the_mother_of_all_cpu_charts_2005/page29.html

Granted dual cpu's/dual core's are an excellent tool when it comes to sheer number crunching (converting video, compressing music etc..) when it comes to gaming there still isn't any rival to the AMD FX range...

(Disclaimer WHEN (in large letters) games are coded specifically to use the second core/cpu then we may see some change but that's no going to happen any time soon)

 

[wozzaa]

Shame really they arent coding for dual cores i know the new unreal game comign out is multithreaded. And the ageing quake3 could be changed to take advantage of a 2nd cpu but theres very few games that are currently comign out that take advantage.

But to be honest the differences between a 2.2ghz amd and a 2.8ghz amd system in gaming isnt something your gonna notice yes you may get higher framerates but the fact of the matter is the majority of peoples monitors are set for between 60 and 100hz anymore so maxing out at 100fps anyways numbers after that mean diddly its just bragging rights.

 

[Griff]

Very true post..

Personally I can't see some peoples obsessions with benchmarks either. It's nice to know what you can acheive but constantly fiddling and updating drivers for that extra 1.2fps seems a bit excessive to me.

It's also funny to see people claim they have 300fps in Counterstrike 1.6 (for example) yet when you ask them about their refresh rate you're met with the answer "refresh rate? whats that?"

Apparently Stalker-Shadows of Chernobhyl (sp?) is being released with a 64bit version and a dual core version but that's just hear say.

 

[wozzaa]

Farcry is already 64bit and i think chronicles of riddick the game think those are some of the only 64bit ones.

I did some benchmarking when i first got it cause basically i just had to beat a mate and i also wanted to see what it was capable of. But a 2.2ghz amd cpu is fast enough for any game out there at the moment and its paired up with a 7800GTX512 card theres not a game i have found i cant run at 1600x1200 with max details and aa and af on. So im past caring if i can get it faster or not. Although i know i can had it to 2.7ghz for benchmarks but its now back at 2.2.

But the difference between this and my single core is massive just daily usage is so much quicker im one of these people that constantly has hundreds of windows open and loads of programs in the background for various things and its just so much more responsive no having to wait on the comp.

Im still happy i went and got a dual core no regrets about that it might not be as quick in single threaded apps but i dont care. But again all the framerates are above what peoples monitors usually display at those resolutions.

What i do find odd about that toms hardware hting is how the 4800+ is slower than the 3800+ when the 4800+ is actually 2 4000+ cores. Guessing they just let windows assign it to a core on its own which i wouldnt do.

 

[McBunny]

there is big differences between dual core and dual cpu

dual core runs faster than single core for most stuff but dual cpu's dont

 

[wozzaa]

Theres very little difference. After all it is basically the same thing.

A dual core is basically a dual cpu. Its just that it has 2 identical cpus with there own cache etc mounted on the same die. Nothing more.

Only difference is the way in which they communicate. The reason the dual cores are faster well the AMD ones the intel ones arent is cause the amd cpu's dont need to communicate via a northbridge. others do.

 

[Lee]

Very true post..

Personally I can't see some peoples obsessions with benchmarks either. It's nice to know what you can acheive but constantly fiddling and updating drivers for that extra 1.2fps seems a bit excessive to me.

It's also funny to see people claim they have 300fps in Counterstrike 1.6 (for example) yet when you ask them about their refresh rate you're met with the answer "refresh rate? whats that?"

Apparently Stalker-Shadows of Chernobhyl (sp?) is being released with a 64bit version and a dual core version but that's just hear say.

Stalker being released will be a miracle. lol

The FX57 I built here the other week gets a higher CPU score in 3DMark than the Athlon X2 4800s do.

 

[McBunny]

main differences tend to be bus speeds between cores etc

 

[wozzaa]

It will get a higher cpu score because only 1 core will be getting used in the 4800+

Get them both being used and it should be massivley faster.

Just most things arent designed for dual cores yet.

 

[Stuart.Atkinson]

this all makes some interesing reading. I should be getting my new pc tonight, athlon 64 x2 3800+ but im worried that its going to struggle with only 1 gig of dual chann ddr ram. What do you guys rekon ?
I will be using it for gaming mostly.

 

[Griff]

1gig will be fine for most games but 2gig is definately recommended for the likes of Battlefield 2 and FEAR.

If you can afford it then there's no harm in going to 2gig.

 

[Stuart.Atkinson]

memory isnt that expensive these days, its just trying to match them up to what ever they put in my new pc .

 

[wozzaa]

I would say buy some decent memory though not just some cheap ddr400 some. its worth the money to get some corsair etc especially on the A64 platform.

 

[Stuart.Atkinson]

it comes with 2x 512 pc3200 400mhz memory. will corsair dual chan work ok with it ?

 

[wozzaa]

What i use in mine so yes. Try and get the XMS stuff though not just the value stuff its worth the extra cost.