2 ?'s hard drive & dual core

Question

I was thinking of getting a Raptor Hard drive, I heard that it really only makes a sig. differance if the operating system (Windows XP) is installed on it. How can I transer the OS and all of the data to the new HD without losing anything? can you use the 'Files and settings transfer Wizard' ?   Dual Core, where does it really help? I was looking at some reviews and the intel dual cores didn't do as well with games as the standard cpus, does dual core really only make a diff in applications and not games? What applications?   Thanks alot for the help and Happy Holidays,   dreinertuwm

SR45 · Answer

I'll handle the dual core stuff, and others will weigh in on the transfer of data. Dual core applications are few at the moment, but will take off in the coming months. Its what we call future proofing of our systems, if we are going to buy today. One game is Far Cry, that has now, or will be offered with the Dual Core in mind. If I were to get any system from Dell or a AMD system, I would get the dual core. Other applications also have to be written for this dual core, and that is where the computer industry is taking us. We are at the starting gate on this

Dual core CPUs are somewhat overkill, and mostly marketing hype at this point because of the handful of software applications that can even make use of the second core. The Intel dual core CPUs are even causing some stability problems with some applications. ( Newer Dual Core chips will be coming out in July of 06 that will address the rushing out the door of the current dual core systems by Intel ) AMD Dual Core are better by far, and now are the leaders in this area, while Intel fell behind. Quad Core also will be coming out in late 06 by AMD first, getting a head start on Intel again, but they will release a quad core as well. See where this is leading ?

If you purchase systems every two years, than maybe a computer without dual core is in you sights. If you keep the system much longer, than the dual core might be right for you. Also, the new Operating System ( Vista ) from Microsoft will also be dual core later in 06

http://www.short-media.com/review.php?r=261

Message Edited by SR45 on 12-25-2005 06:38 AM

bob_c_b · Answer

Dual Core is definitely the way to go, Windows Vista will is being designed with more paralellism in mind and by time it ships many popular apps will be optimized for multi-threading. As SR45 said, it is a "future proofing" move that is worth the effort if you intend to keep your PC for a while.

But I have to ask SR45, where did you get this biased info about Intel Dual Cores having appication issues? I have yet to find an application that has trouble with Intel Dual Core CPUs, care to elaborate and definitely explain how an application would have an issue with a Pentium D yet doesn't have an issue with AMD Dual Cores?

Also note that Intel has been working with game developers recently and a patch for Quake IV is in testing and CoD2 as well that is specifically optimized for Intel Pentium D CPUs, and while Athlon X2s show some benefit, the Pentium D shows the greatest gains.

Also look closely at the number and compare apples to apples, there might be a 5-10% performance gap (and mostly in games) when you compare similair processors (the X2 3800+ should be compared the the Pentium D 820 or 830 at best) but there is a 25-35% price delta. Add to that you are saddled with chipsets from nVidia, Sis, ATi or Via, all of which have signifigant issues (general compatability, large file transfer corruption, weak USB performance, etc...).

SR45 · Answer

Actually an article did say that there was some stability issues, not great, but some and I still cannot find it. However, it did not say all application, and just because you did not find issues and I did not find issues with my dual core, does not mean there is none. Plenty of applications out there that we never use....

Other words, I personally would wait for the follow on dual core to come out, that has better benchmarking and is matured

Dim 4400 ( 3 Years 7 Months, going strong )
2.6 Ghz 400 FSB
1 Gb 2100 DDR Memory
20 Gb hard drive 7,200
Windows XP Home - SP-2
Leadtek 6600 GT
48xCDRW
17 LCD ( 1703 FP )
250 watt power supply

Message Edited by SR45 on 12-25-2005 01:19 PM

SR45 · Answer

Regardless of what you have stated, Intel itself commented that it did rush out the dual core cpu. That tells me, and should tell others that it would be wise to hold off if you can... I agree, its not a blow out. BUT, AMD seems to be the winner here

Dim 4400 ( 3 Years 7 Months, going strong )
2.6 Ghz 400 FSB
1 Gb 2100 DDR Memory
20 Gb hard drive 7,200
Windows XP Home - SP-2
Leadtek 6600 GT
48xCDRW
17 LCD ( 1703 FP )
250 watt power supply

Message Edited by SR45 on 12-25-2005 01:26 PM

SR45 · Answer

PC Magazine January 2006 edition, page 104 " The Athlon 64x2 and Opteron were conceived as dual-core, with high-speed connections built in, Intel chips weren't, and can suffer from bottlenecking ". This is just one very small article on the dual core subject. Others can be found using a Google search.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050818-5220.html

In part it reads :

" We suspected as much, and Intel has confirmed

it: the dual-core Pentium 4 was a hack . Speaking at the Hot Chips conference in advance of next week's Intel Developers Forum, Intel engineer Jonathan Douglas said that the dual-core Smithfield was rushed out the door because of competitive pressures from AMD. "We were behind," and Intel needed a "competitive response" to the dual-core CPUs in development by its rival ".

http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/08/17/HNpentium4rush_1.html

http://reviews.cnet.com/4531-10921_7-6303271.html

" Because Intel scrambled to beat AMD to market, its single core-designed packaging simply couldn't power the Pentium D chips efficiently enough to compete with AMD's X2 series. The result: Amds dual core beats intel

across the board on our benchmarks.

It remains to be seen whether Intel's forthcoming Presler dual-core chip (due in Q1 2006) and accompanying chipset will overtake AMD. We can say now, though, that if you'd like to purchase a dual-core CPU-based PC in the next six months, by Intel's own admission, you're better off choosing AMD ".

Message Edited by SR45 on 12-25-2005 01:23 PM

bob_c_b · Answer

I think the article you are referring to was a snippet regarding the first wave of Conroe's that some OEMs recieved and I think it was basedon microcode issues. That article disappeared almost instantly so I doubt anyone had a supporting argument for it, else it would still be the leading story at many enthusiast web sites. Anand's Conroe numbers are what really have my interest, this box will get handed off to the wife when Vista ships and by then Conroe and the G965 chipsets will be in full swing production.

bob_c_b · Answer

Bottlenecking does not equal stability issues as your post stated, that is my greater bone of contention.   I don't contest it was a rush job, nor that a comparable AMD X2 beats a Pentium D by a small margin, but I do refute the idea that it is a blow out. That said, I do look forward to Conroe as the Yonah previews show that Intel has resolved it's performance and heat issues pretty well. This summer should be pretty interesting.   Either way, Merry Chirstmas. Message Edited by bob_c_b on 12-25-2005 12:17 PM

SR45 · Answer

@bob_c_b wrote:

Dual Core is definitely the way to go, Windows Vista will is being designed with more paralellism in mind and by time it ships many popular apps will be optimized for multi-threading. As SR45 said, it is a "future proofing" move that is worth the effort if you intend to keep your PC for a while.

But I have to ask SR45, where did you get this biased info about Intel Dual Cores having appication issues? I have yet to find an application that has trouble with Intel Dual Core CPUs, care to elaborate and definitely explain how an application would have an issue with a Pentium D yet doesn't have an issue with AMD Dual Cores?

Also note that Intel has been working with game developers recently and a patch for Quake IV is in testing and CoD2 as well that is specifically optimized for Intel Pentium D CPUs, and while Athlon X2s show some benefit, the Pentium D shows the greatest gains.

Also look closely at the number and compare apples to apples, there might be a 5-10% performance gap (and mostly in games) when you compare similair processors (the X2 3800+ should be compared the the Pentium D 820 or 830 at best) but there is a 25-35% price delta. Add to that you are saddled with chipsets from nVidia, Sis, ATi or Via, all of which have signifigant issues (general compatability, large file transfer corruption, weak USB performance, etc...).

Wish I still could find the article, but even Intel has said just resently that it did rush out the Dual Core, and it has had some issues with it, though you may not have found any yourself. I'll look around the place for this information and post it.

bob_c_b · Answer

You make it sound like it was lashed together with duct tape :smileyvery-happy: Undeniably the X2 is slightly faster and clearly the Pentium D was rushed (lacks some fine optimizations that would have made it more competitive). That said, it is hardly a poor solution, not just the best it could be and not a poor solution by any means. If you have to buy a system right now there is little reason not to consider a Pentium D, and if you are buying a Dell it strikes me as a no brainer. As you said, it is a matter of 'future proofing' at this point, but if you can't wait for Conroe there is nothing actually wrong with Smithfield.

Locked Topics – Desktops General

2 ?'s hard drive & dual core

Was this post helpful?

Register Now! for Secure Secrets with Kubernetes & DevSecOps - and grab a lab!

Dell Technologies at SpiceWorld 2022