to dual core or not to dual core...

[Ken Gunderson]

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 15:07:12 -0700
Freddie Cash <fcash at ocis.net> wrote:

> On August 15, 2005 02:54 pm, you wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 14:36:14 -0700
> >
> > Freddie Cash <fcash at ocis.net> wrote:
> > > On August 15, 2005 02:08 pm, Ken Gunderson wrote:
> > > > ah, that is the question...
[snippage]
> Depends on your workload.  :)
> 
> If you tend to run only 1 or 2 large programs at a time, with nothing 
> running in the background, and if those apps are single-threaded, then 
> you may be better off with a faster single-code CPU.  Especially if you 
> are into gaming, as the vast majority of those are still primarily 
> single-threaded, and the Athlon64 FX is still the premier gaming CPU.
> 
> However, if you tend to have a thousand different apps loaded, and they 
> are all chugging away in the background doing various things, and you 
> like to multitask (write docs, compile code, listen to music, rip CDs, 
> etc), then a dual-core system will be a better fit.
> 
> One thing to watch for with the dual-core Athlon64 X2s is the amount of 
> cache.  The only difference between some of the models is the amount of 
> L2; the actual processor speed is the same.

So I've noticed;-)  

The only benches I've seen are for Winblows and seem to be about 20-30
% increase for high multitasking.  I DO tend to have a lot of apps open
and doing several things at once but, as you point out, it also depends
on how those apps are coded.  For example, I don't notice my old dual
PIII 450 taking advantage of the 2nd cpu much under X...

Anyhow, thanks for your input.  Was hoping that maybe someone w/a dual
core rig could perhaps share some real world fbsd experience...

-- 
Best regards,

Ken Gunderson

Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
A: Why is putting a reply at the top of the message frowned upon?