One CPU or Two ?

I've just been reading in this months PCW (personal computer world) in the uk about SMP compatible games. Is it true that quake 3 can take advantage of a dual CPU computer system ?

Yes it is.. Theres a console setting that you have to set before it works, but SMP is supported. I'm sorry, but since I don't own Q3, I don't know the actual command though.

Put this in the Console man.....

r_smp 1

All games will benefit by 2 CPUs being present, simply because the OS (NT/Win2K, Beos, Linux) will use them both.



------------------
SuperMicro P6DBS (dual UW-SCSI) BIOS 2.2, 2*Celery 300a @ 450Mhz, 384MB PC100 RAM
SCSI-A=4.3Gb+9Gb, SCSI-B=Tosh32x CD-ROM, Yamaha4416 CD-RW, Iomega ZIP100, IDE1=4.3Gb
IBM EtherJet 10/100 NIC PCI + Nortel ADSL "modem"
Matrox G400 DH 32Mb AGP + Quantum3D Voodoo2 SLI PCI (CL TNT1 AGP on a shelf)
SoundBlaster Live PCI (not Value)
Win2K build 2195 Retail (not 120-day eval)

Once you move to 2 cpu's you will never go back. It makes multitasking a dream. I have yet to see my pc slow down.

dual 528mhz
384mb of ram
14.4 7200rpm drive ata/33
13.6 5400rpm drive ata/66
voodoo3
Panasonic 8x4x32 CDRW
Panasonic 10x DVD
Sblive 1024
Hollywood Plus DVD Decoder Card

[This message has been edited by Seldzar (edited 14 February 2000).]

Thanks for your answers, you've all been a great help. Now for the killer question, i'm about to upgrade to a dual pentium III system running windows 2000 pro. What motherboard would you say i would be best of with ?

This question has already been answered. Please use the search option

Hi i have just recently upgraded to a dual P3 500 system and the motherboard i have got is the new asus P3C-D it is a great board and i even treated my self to 256 mb of PC-800 RDRAM bloody expensive but well worth it. It is superb you can if you want put up to 1024mb of PC 800 RDRAM in but it will take the usual type as well i have been running unreal tournament at 1600 x 1200 at 60 FPS+ it has to be seen to be believed it is silky smooth and absolutely gorgeous lol




------------------
MAC

RDRAM isn't worth it!! Not at its price $1000 for 128MB RDRAM PC800, stick with SDRAM for now, until the prices go down.

I just have a question to ask you. Isn't the Intel Pentium III 500 CPU designed for a 100 FSB? If I have a 100 FSB CPU and a PC-133 I usually see no difference because it is running at 100MHz. How the hell did you get your system to run at 800MHz with a 100 MHz FSB CPU? Maybe I am missing something? Some technical help please

I dont really understand what you mean mate if if a Pentium 3 could not handle PC 800 RDRAM then what possibly can as it is the latest processor it is 2:00 am and maybe i have miss understood you mate.
explain either on the forum or contact me via icq on : 53873233cheers mate.

I was under the impression that system RAM speed has to be in synchronous with the CPU system speed. For example, I have a dual Pentium II 450 CPU that runs at 100MHz (FSB). That is why I have PC-100 RAM. If I add PC-133 RAM to my system it will not perform at 133MHz (FSB) it will be 100MHz (FSB) because of the CPU slowing the ram down to 100MHz (FSB). Granted I can over clock my RAM now to 133MHz now But for people who have a Pentium III 500 they are not processing data at 800MHz and thus not benefiting from getting RDRAM because of the CPU. Is this concept correct? Or should I put this crack pipe down?

Hey MarksManX, you're out-of-date. Just have a look at i820, Intel lastest chipset, and yu'll know every thing about RDRAM, and it DOES run at 800 MHz !!!!!!

Here are a few link to iXBT :
Intel 820 Chipset
i820 - the story of one failure
Direct RDRAM vs PC133: a Quick Look at the Near Future

I'm just sorry to says to Mac, that his "High-End", "High-Cost" Computer would have gone as fast with a dual PIII500 and SD-RAM. Btw, Hyundai introduced 143-, 166-, 183 MHz DDR SDRAM chips and Samsung announced 266 MHz 64 Mbit SDRAM . So just forget about this RDRAM carp and go back to this Xcellent 440BX.

If you had had a lookat Hardawreforum last week, you would have learned many things about CPU and Chipset future : I just waiting ONE thing : dual Athlon !!!!!!!!

Awx

RDram run's at 800mhz but dont' take that literally, it can't go past that 100mhz sytem bus barrier that your cpu is using. However it does have the "800 mhz" of bandwidth in the ram. So the communication between your ram and the rest of the puter is 100mhz, but the ram itself is 800mhz which makes it VERY effective for multitasking. Of course you won't see any difference between pc 100 and rdram cause of the system bus issue. The ram itself shares that 800mhz with all programs in ram. Picture 8 separate programs using 10mb of memeory and having a 100mhz each of the ram to use, as opposed to 8 programs using 10mb of ram each and having about 18mhz each of the total 100mhz available. Now you can see how that would help with multitasking.I hope that made sense, if not hell i could be totally wrong, wouldn't be the first time =)


[This message has been edited by Seldzar (edited 15 February 2000).]

I do not totally agree with you cos the bandwith of 100 MHz is for every body : CPU and prorams, so in multitasking, progs have to share the same bandwith to access the RAM. And in mmultitasking, prorams access different part of the RAM and RDRAM access time can go crazy.

iXBT (my new reference :)) conclude in is RDRAM/SDRAM comparaison that RDRAM would be efficient with apps needing huge data trabsfert, like image editing. (RDRAM has a HUGE data rate but a horrible access time).

But I think this thread should be followed up in hardware forum ...


Awx

[This message has been edited by Awaxx (edited 15 February 2000).]

I heard, that if you have a dual celeron setup, it is a waste, because the celeron cache is so low...


Just what I have heard (My single 366 oced to 550 works fine)

Please explain to me a waste?....how exactly does that apply?

it has 128k "on-die" of cache, it runs at full speed, its not a waste.

What JBoDEAN may wanna say is that, as you have a smaller cache in Celeron, even if it's full speed, you have to go often in RAM. That needs a good access time and not really a high bandwith. So SDRAM seems to be better with a Celeron, so RDRAM would be a waste.
Anyway, I think that in any case RDRAM is a waste (just have a look at lastest DDR SDRAM ....).

Awx
-----
Missa french, missa speak bad english, missa from Naboo

[This message has been edited by Awaxx (edited 16 February 2000).]

Dual Celeron maybe slower than a Dual P3, but please remember the reason that I went for dual celeron is because my dual 366@550 with BP6 is cheaper than a single P2550 and mobo when I brought them and they are twice as stable with NT.

once you into SMP and NT, you'll begin to hate Win95/98. 1 more thing can you play mp3 while burning a cd, downloading files and browsing the web without crashing with win95/98/single processor?

Once you go dual, you will never go back! I can run MP3s while playing Q2 without any performace loss hehe Gotta love that!

Agreed, once SMP always SMP. You just can't beat the price/performance ratio of a BP6 and a couple of overclocked Celerons.

Ed

What I wanted to say is Celeron is the worst thing you can have with RDRAM. And as RDRAM is the worst thing you can have in you box, Celeronis great. Anyway, I don't think you can puta Celeronon i820 (Intel lastest chipset supportin RDRAM).

I'm waiting AMD dual CPU : Intel is dead(nearly).

Awx

From what I have read. A dual AMD Processor is going to come out around 2001. VIA is going to make the dual chipset. By that time Willimette be ahead by a long shot. I hope you have read about the new Intel Processor that is doing 1.5GHz From my experience AMD has always caused lock ups and is very unreliable I had to return my K6-2 300 because of cards my G200 locking up. V2 SLI did work though But the OS is no good if it keeps locking up every 10 mins. After that experience I am Pro-Intel. I have never had an lock up issue yet with this Dual 450. ( Q3 SMP is another story

Intel is Dead?? Sure, just wait for the new line of "Willamette" (I think thats the right spelling) Processor come out, they'll blow your mind man, I like AMD too, if you're gonna do "Chip" bashing....bash the Cyrix line...if there still is one.

in symetric multi processor config all CPU sync occurs in the cache. less cache less SMP will happen. More cache such as in a PII or PIII that has 512k more effeicent data processing. Thats why celerons that have 128k cache arent good for SMP. Thats why the old Pent Pro and new Xeon have more cache.

My dual celeron 400@500 system will kick the hell out of yours, Xeon....sure, $2500 for a 550 with 1mb cache

He asked a simple question EddiE314
, don't insult my intelligence, sounds like you're a little B1TCH that was picked on as a child.

rOcko: No one hears your small voice anymore. Why not go on irc and find some conflict there? Stop by #riva on efnet sometime so I can test my new bot scripts on you...

On SMP with Celerons: SMP and it's benefits are far more dictated by your applications than CPU cache. I have a dual cele 500 Mhz setup and it floats. If you pair a dual cele setup with a GeForce card you're looking at a seriously bad-ass system with few bottlenecks. Go SCSI as well and you can be rOcko's daddy.

I have a dual Celeron system, I do not find any great improvement compared to a uniprocessor system. Anyway, most programs are single threaded, therefore, it would not benefit the SMP users out there.

The benefit of using SMP system is, you can have more things done at the same amount of time, not you can have more things done in less time (which many people misunderstood). It can only show its potential when the program is multithreaded.

I do agree that Celerons are crippled by its low amount of cache compared with PIII or Xeon. But when considering the number of Celerons you can buy when you buy a Xeon, I think Celeron definitely win the performance/price throne.

Thats right rocko, you are a little B1tch.
Good, at least you can read my posts about you