came across a post on another forum claiming dualcore and dualcpu worked differently.
dualcpu demanded software written for dualcpu but dualcore could run basicly any software on both cores.

to me it sounds a bit off as i know of a couple of fellows using dualcpu setups as a homecomputer and if the second cpu isnt used with ordinary software its just wasted money and atleast one of the fellows i have seen with a dualcpu setup has to much knowledge to do such a misstake.

[QUOTE=Raven]came across a post on another forum claiming dualcore and dualcpu worked differently.
dualcpu demanded software written for dualcpu but dualcore could run basicly any software on both cores.

to me it sounds a bit off as i know of a couple of fellows using dualcpu setups as a homecomputer and if the second cpu isnt used with ordinary software its just wasted money and atleast one of the fellows i have seen with a dualcpu setup has to much knowledge to do such a misstake.[/QUOTE]
That poster was wrong. Dual CPU and dual core setups run exactly the same in terms of the kinds of programs that can actually utilize the extra processor/core.

In both situations the computer is recognizing two CPU's whether you actually have two cpu's or a single CPU w/ two cores. Applications need to be multi-threaded to be able to fully utilize either setup.

sounds more like the lines i thought of.

thanks for the help :)

That guy rich raven? Every dual CPU board ive seen has been SO expensive.

Basically the program has to be multi-threaded. As long as you have a multi-threaded program , you can use a P4 with HT , Dual core , Dual Cpu and so on. The actually load balancing is done by the windows task manager and its decently efficient in doing so. However a dual cpu setup will tend to be more responsive since the bus or the hypertransport ( depending on the processor and platform ) doesnt become a bottleneck some both processors have their own single little setups.

Speaking of hypertransport , I cannot wait for Hypertransport 3 . Its going to have INSANE amount of bandwidth. Enough to feed 4 dual core opterons on a single HTT feed. Imagine have all that bandwidth per cpu ! The system would be sooooooooooooo efficient. I wonder when Intel will come out with something similar , given the fact that their bus is getting oversaturated pretty dang fast and scales horribly.

Conroe STILL manages to pull ahead though. How, we're not sure.. but it does, and it does it VERY well. :D

Nick

thanks for the clarifications :worship: but their will be no more discussion with the fellow that was the reason i started this thread.

he has been banned from the forum and accused of being a troll which actually dont surprise me.

[quote=NickS]Conroe STILL manages to pull ahead though. How, we're not sure.. but it does, and it does it VERY well. :D

Nick[/quote]


Nick your the perfect example of a "fanboi" . I am disappointed in you. You are comparing old technology with new. Is conroe in the market right now ?? Do you know anything about Conroe's architecture ?? I hope you know that Woodcrest ( Conroe's server edition brother ) scales horribly in a 4x4 setup. Why ?? Because of the bus limitations. Intel can try and try but I think with Conroe , they have extracted the maximum they could with bus. No doubt conroe is fast but wait till Rev. G or K8L comes out. That will actually be AMD's answer to Intel. Comparing Conroe ( future product ) to Skt 939/AM2 ( current products is just wrong ).

Nice clarification for the uninitiated amongst us |3ourne, and againa you've hit the proverbial nail right on the head. Yeah the 'Conroe' benchmarks we have seen sure are both fast and impressive, but it's the 'unknown' competition from AMD that we haven't seen yet, that we should be basing our comparisons of 'Conroe' upon. But yeah Intel is the best option at the present. :)

[QUOTE=NickS]Conroe STILL manages to pull ahead though. How, we're not sure.. but it does, and it does it VERY well. :D

Nick[/QUOTE]

Further to |3ourne's comments on Conroe - AMD's server line of processors definately have the advantage running the onboard memory controller. Running in multi-cpu environments Intels current solution cannot keep up and gets saturated quickly (as stated). For Large expensive multi CPU servers AMD still has this slice of the pie :)