friend of mine tells me don't bother getting an X2 on Home Edition, is he right?

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by Ben Markson, Nov 8, 2005.

  1. Ben Markson

    Ben Markson Guest

    i wanted to save up for a 3800+ X2 dual core, but my friend says
    that i shouldn't even bother because i'm running XP home edition.

    we got into an argument about how home edition can use one
    processor and pro uses two, but i said it still uses both cores
    on one processor (after looking it up on the internet).

    now he says it will recognize, but i still won't be able to use
    SMP enabled software, so even though home sees it, there's no
    point in having it because i can't use it.

    i'm confused... WTH?
     
    Ben Markson, Nov 8, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Ben Markson

    nos1eep Guest

    On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 10:57:27 GMT, "Ben Markson"
    <> spewed the following drivel:

    >i wanted to save up for a 3800+ X2 dual core, but my friend says
    >that i shouldn't even bother because i'm running XP home edition.
    >
    >we got into an argument about how home edition can use one
    >processor and pro uses two, but i said it still uses both cores
    >on one processor (after looking it up on the internet).
    >
    >now he says it will recognize, but i still won't be able to use
    >SMP enabled software, so even though home sees it, there's no
    >point in having it because i can't use it.
    >
    >i'm confused... WTH?


    Your friend is a fuckwit. The x2 will do it all and will do it more
    efficiently than running dual processors as the multithreading
    capabilities are handled by the processor itself and not just with
    software, therefore virtually any intensive program will benefit to
    some degree. However, this chip only really comes alive with a 64 bit
    OS. Home supports dual processors and dual core.


    __

    -nos1eep
     
    nos1eep, Nov 8, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ben Markson

    bmoag Guest

    All versions of XP run dual core processors.
    There is virtually no consumer dual core software out there except for some
    processes in Photoshop CS2, and even those are limited.
    The media touts the ability to multi-task more efficiently on dual core
    processors.My experience with the AMDX2 has been that this is an
    exaggeration if your are trying to run two processor intensive applications
    simultaneously. (Who would believe the advertiser driven computer press
    lies, or at least just passes on manufacturer hype uncritically?). It is
    clearly faster to do so at a given clock speed than a single core cpu but
    your are not going to see the equivalent of two independent computers
    running simultaneously.
    Both AMD and Intel will be issuing new pin outs and chipsets after the first
    of the year. Intel will likely redesign their dual core to be more like the
    AMD rather than two cpus just bolted together.
    As it stands running the 64 bit flavor of Windows is only a few notches
    less frustrating than running Linux.
    Most 32 bit software will run on Win64, although most studies show it runs
    about the same as on WinXP and sometimes slower.
    Alas your printer, scanner, etc probably does not have a 64 bit driver and
    may not work at all. Your supercharged 3d video card will probably have
    drivers but they will not be as sophisticated as those for 32bit Windows.
    There is little real world need for 64 bit, dual core processing for the
    vast majority of computer users (most business users could easily get by
    with Pentium II level performance) and unfortunately the PC game market is
    losing out to console based gaming so even that market segment is not
    really driving technologic change.
     
    bmoag, Nov 8, 2005
    #3
  4. Ben Markson

    Ben Markson Guest

    thanks.

    so when software does start coming out to make use of it, does it
    matter what OS you have? Home or Pro?
     
    Ben Markson, Nov 8, 2005
    #4
  5. Ben Markson

    nos1eep Guest

    On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 16:06:06 GMT, "bmoag" <> spewed
    the following drivel:

    >All versions of XP run dual core processors.
    >There is virtually no consumer dual core software out there except

    for some
    >processes in Photoshop CS2, and even those are limited.
    >The media touts the ability to multi-task more efficiently on dual

    core
    >processors.My experience with the AMDX2 has been that this is an
    >exaggeration if your are trying to run two processor intensive

    applications
    >simultaneously. (Who would believe the advertiser driven computer

    press
    >lies, or at least just passes on manufacturer hype uncritically?). It

    is
    >clearly faster to do so at a given clock speed than a single core cpu

    but
    >your are not going to see the equivalent of two independent computers
    >running simultaneously.
    >Both AMD and Intel will be issuing new pin outs and chipsets after

    the first
    >of the year. Intel will likely redesign their dual core to be more

    like the
    >AMD rather than two cpus just bolted together.
    >As it stands running the 64 bit flavor of Windows is only a few

    notches
    >less frustrating than running Linux.
    >Most 32 bit software will run on Win64, although most studies show it

    runs
    >about the same as on WinXP and sometimes slower.
    >Alas your printer, scanner, etc probably does not have a 64 bit

    driver and
    >may not work at all. Your supercharged 3d video card will probably

    have
    >drivers but they will not be as sophisticated as those for 32bit

    Windows.
    >There is little real world need for 64 bit, dual core processing for

    the
    >vast majority of computer users (most business users could easily get

    by
    >with Pentium II level performance) and unfortunately the PC game

    market is
    >losing out to console based gaming so even that market segment is

    not
    >really driving technologic change.


    Interesting, valid argument. I read the same argument back in the day
    when we were making the transition from x86 to Pentium and DOS to
    windows, 12 years ago. Versatility and the ability to multitask with a
    home PC, are very important criteria for purchasing or otherwise
    upgrading your system. The dual core processors are one way to go and
    AMD has that technology mastered.
    My system is based on an abit fatal1ty mobo with a 4800+x2, SATA2 @ 3
    gb/s data transfer, dual 256mb SL1 graphics adapters, ect. Do I need
    that much power all of the time. No, but I do want it available, just
    as I want excessive power available when I punch the accelerator on my
    car.

    __

    -nos1eep
     
    nos1eep, Nov 9, 2005
    #5
  6. Ben Markson

    Ben Markson Guest

    does dual core even use SMP then? that's what it's coming down to
    with me.

    if dual core has SMP, i get XP pro, if it doesn't, Home.

    if games that support dual cores will NOT run as fast on Home, i
    get pro. it's just that simple for me.
     
    Ben Markson, Nov 9, 2005
    #6
  7. Ben Markson

    nos1eep Guest

    On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 14:23:20 GMT, "Ben Markson"
    <> spewed the following drivel:

    >does dual core even use SMP then? that's what it's coming down to
    >with me.
    >
    >if dual core has SMP, i get XP pro, if it doesn't, Home.
    >
    >if games that support dual cores will NOT run as fast on Home, i
    >get pro. it's just that simple for me.
    >


    Yes X2 uses SMP and Windows NT supports it. No advantage between Pro
    and Home as far as game play goes. Have a good read here:
    http://www.3davenue.com/1342.html It will show you the versitility of
    an X2. An FX will still smoke the X2 in gaming but for the money, dual
    core is the way to go. Plus there is the cool factor of an X2 that is
    not to be denied. ;-)
    __

    -nos1eep
     
    nos1eep, Nov 10, 2005
    #7
  8. Ben Markson

    derek / nul Guest

    On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 14:23:20 GMT, "Ben Markson" <>
    wrote:

    >does dual core even use SMP then? that's what it's coming down to
    >with me.
    >
    >if dual core has SMP, i get XP pro, if it doesn't, Home.


    SMP is a part of the OS, not the CPU.
     
    derek / nul, Nov 10, 2005
    #8
  9. Ben Markson

    Ben Markson Guest

    so basically, i should get pro because down the line, say 6
    months from now when a game comes out that uses both processors
    "truely" simultaneously (which is software SMP), i don't want to
    be stuck with Home which can't do it.

    so in a way, my friend was "kind of" right, even though most
    games won't take advantage of it for awhile? he was thinking too
    far in the future?

    thanks. :)
     
    Ben Markson, Nov 10, 2005
    #9
  10. Ben Markson

    Ben Markson Guest

    see, i'm just getting a little confused between this.

    when you say dual core supports SMP, what i mean is, if I'm
    running Home edition, and lets say I have a game that fully
    supports dual core processing (meaning it uses both cores) can I
    run this maximized on Home Edition?
     
    Ben Markson, Nov 10, 2005
    #10
  11. Ben Markson

    nos1eep Guest

    On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 11:47:24 GMT, "Ben Markson"
    <> spewed the following drivel:

    >see, i'm just getting a little confused between this.
    >
    >when you say dual core supports SMP, what i mean is, if I'm
    >running Home edition, and lets say I have a game that fully
    >supports dual core processing (meaning it uses both cores) can I
    >run this maximized on Home Edition?


    Yes you can and you can multitask at the same time. I use dual
    monitors to keep up with email, chat, downloads, FTP, p2p, etc while
    running a full screen game at around 100fps or more depending on the
    game and the map loaded.
    __

    -nos1eep
     
    nos1eep, Nov 11, 2005
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. test don't bother reading

    , Mar 16, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    400
    Vanguard
    Mar 16, 2005
  2. Lionel

    a picture of a very close personal friend of mine

    Lionel, Oct 28, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    422
    Ray Fischer
    Oct 29, 2003
  3. Steve Young

    A photo of a close personal friend of mine

    Steve Young, Nov 9, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    390
    Trevor Graham
    Nov 14, 2003
  4. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?BenOne=A9?=

    Don't bother with Ilford paper & Canon i9950

    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?BenOne=A9?=, Nov 15, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    478
    Rescho
    Dec 1, 2004
  5. Dennis

    Don't bother at the moment

    Dennis, May 9, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    39
    Views:
    1,734
    John Barnes
    May 31, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page