Which would be better for gaming, dual P4s at 3GHz each so basically 6GHz, or a single AMD 64 processor?
You're trying to make an apples to oranges comparisson. Two P4s in no way performs anything like a single 64 bit AMD.
now can 2 p4s run most app and games? If they could how much faster (if any) would they be?
performance would be about the same between both choices mentioned. Remember that its not the Hardware that determines dual CPU usage, its the software. Unless the software is written with coding to ustilize 2 CPU's then the second CPU won't be used.
Pestilence, the essence of your statement is a paradox. In one instance you state that the two would perform about the same, in the next instance, you state that it takes special software encoding to utilize two CPUs. It's either one or the other. Only a couple games out there are written to support more than one CPU. The rest is all business/commercial software. I can't see any single AMD CPU performing equal with two 3gHz CPUs in an application that openly supports dual CPUs, any more than a single P4 would be able to perform the same as two AMD-64 chips in the same app. Apples to Oranges. Just to clear something up, 3gHz + 3gHz does not equal 6gHz. It equals 2 3gHz CPUs. No software or OS(or BIOS) that I'm aware of can add two CPU core signals and combine them together to make one. How I wish that were true, though! Forget dual, you could go get a quad Xeon.
With Multi-core chips coming in the near future, we should expect more software being written to support more than one CPU. But right now it's just a waste of money.
what game do you know of that supports Multi CPU rigs? Besides Quake III, if you want to run a Quake III server then it may be worth it to get a Dual CPU rig, but how many people do you think still play it. And were talking about games not other apps. you would prolly be suprised how many apps out there don't support SMP. And also in the near future when dual core chips come out there wont be more apps withs SMP support, cus in Dual-core chips it SMP instructions will not be needed, it will all be handeled at the hardware level.
Shizzle my nizzle
28th July 2004
Processor speed matters less than it used to. Now the main factors of performance for games are the amound of cache in the processor, the Word Size (The number of bits the processor can deal with in one operation; in the case of 64-bit AMD, 64 bits, surprisingly) and the FSB (most motherboards can take 800MHz) along with minor things like the intricate circuitry on the microchip. Because of this, if you are looking for performance go for the AMD 64-Bit over the two P4s as there are not many more benifits above speed in having two P4s.
However, early in 2005 we will see the first line of Pentium 64-Bit chips which should give AMD a run for their money so it is going to be a tough competition.
First and foremost, Pentium 4's cannot work in tandem. You have to go with Xeon DPs if you want this. Xeon MPs are necessary for four-way processing from Intel. AMD has similar restricitions Second, as someone already pointed out, using dual processors does not double effective clock speed. In real world use, one generally sees a 20-30% increase in perceived speed over a single CPU. Third, dual CPUs is only going to be of use for gaming in one of two situations: you're playing a multithreaded game, or you're using the second CPU to do something else on the system while gaming on the first CPU. If you aren't doing either, it's not worthwhile. Fourth, Xeon DP and Opteron 2xx CPUs are very expensive to begin with and must be used in pairs. Xeon UP and Opteron 1xx CPUs are used singly, but at that point why bother upgrading from desktop CPUs? Fifth, the viability of server chips in a desktop environment is limited. In order to get good gaming performance, you're going to have to give up some of the best features of the server chip (in the Xeon's case--EM64T), or bring undesirable features with it (in the Opteron's case--Registered ECC memory).
So in the end, unless you score a sweet deal on a dual-processor setup, it's not even close to being worth the cost.
Two pentium 4's will not go twice as fast. A single chip has hyperthreading or hypertransport which fakes a dual processor in single processor machines. When dual p4s come out, this will be disabled. You'll probally see a 50% increase over a single to a double because of this. I'v also heard that intel will not calls these a pentium 4. Right now they are called "Smithfield" and only have a maximum of 3.2 1mb cache
Pestilence64there wont be more apps withs SMP support, cus in Dual-core chips it SMP instructions will not be needed, it will all be handeled at the hardware level.
You mean like what happened with Hyper-threading? I personally don't think of running more than one CPU at this point in the game. But for the benefit of Unreal3x, I was trying to make a point. Comparing a single CPU against a dual setup is moot. Especially when it comes to games. The only other game I can think that uses dual cpus is Unreal2004. Still not worth building a dual setup.