Noob Dual Processor question

[jcross]

Ok here's a seriously newbie question.. but with dual processors, specifically the AMD 4600+ processor, would 2 physical processor go on the motherboard? Yeah I know the 'dual' would suggest that, but I dont see 2 slots for the processor on the board (ASUS A8N-SLI premium), according to the image on the ASUS site.

Thanks

 

[RichUK]

there is two cores on the same socket, this is dual core, so you will only need one socket 939 interface on the motherboard.

if it were dual processor motherboard, then you would have two sockets on the motherboard,

so basically both the cores are on the same processor not two seperate processors, so you will only need one socket on the mobo...

 

[Griffinhart]

Dual Core Processors are two CPU's on a single CPU unit. It uses only a single socket on a motherboard. (Socket 939, for the AMD64 line)

Usually, Dual Processor systems refer to a Motherboard that has two sockets, typically for single core processors. That said, you will see multi socket boards for multi processor systems for the Opteron line.

So, if you see a Mobo that is socket 939, it should support dual core processors. There are a few exceptions, but, the majority of 939 boards have bios updates to support the new chips.

 

[piddlefoot]

lol slapped two 3200+ together omfg, hay presto a 4400+ cpu chip, mad, yea almost two complete cpus liderally glued together so to speak.As one cpu with almost double the output, think of it as the next step from the xeon style set up, where you have 2 cpus on a motherboard, but bus speed between core/ cpus is slow, now AMD have done a single cpu that contains 2 cpus inside it.And bus speed from cpu to cpu is , well ,awsome compared to the xeon set up for latency, l think we ll see alot more cores added over the next few years, until they find there heat limits.
16 core cpu after a shrinck maybe ........makes you wonder about virtual 3d games...

 

[Griffinhart]

Originally posted by: piddlefoot
lol slapped two 3200+ together omfg, hay presto a 4400+ cpu chip, mad, yea almost two complete cpus liderally glued together so to speak.As one cpu with almost double the output, think of it as the next step from the xeon style set up, where you have 2 cpus on a motherboard, but bus speed between core/ cpus is slow, now AMD have done a single cpu that contains 2 cpus inside it.And bus speed from cpu to cpu is , well ,awsome compared to the xeon set up for latency, l think we ll see alot more cores added over the next few years, until they find there heat limits.
16 core cpu after a shrinck maybe ........makes you wonder about virtual 3d games...

Actually the 4400+ isn't two 2100's. The 3800+ has the same clockspeed and cache as the 3200, but it runs games at about 3500+ speeds.

 

[t0kinl3lunts]

Originally posted by: Griffinhart

Originally posted by: piddlefoot
lol slapped two 3200+ together omfg, hay presto a 4400+ cpu chip, mad, yea almost two complete cpus liderally glued together so to speak.As one cpu with almost double the output, think of it as the next step from the xeon style set up, where you have 2 cpus on a motherboard, but bus speed between core/ cpus is slow, now AMD have done a single cpu that contains 2 cpus inside it.And bus speed from cpu to cpu is , well ,awsome compared to the xeon set up for latency, l think we ll see alot more cores added over the next few years, until they find there heat limits.
16 core cpu after a shrinck maybe ........makes you wonder about virtual 3d games...

Actually the 4400+ isn't two 2100's. The 3800+ has the same clockspeed and cache as the 3200, but it runs games at about 3500+ speeds.

I think your saying two 3200s, but thats not what has me curious. How could a 3800 with the "same clockpeed and cache" as a 3200 POSSIBLY run a single threaded game as if it were faster when you don't take into account the offloading of other processes. Wouldn't the extra cpu interface actually create more latency?

 

[Topweasel]

Originally posted by: t0kinl3lunts

Originally posted by: Griffinhart

Originally posted by: piddlefoot
lol slapped two 3200+ together omfg, hay presto a 4400+ cpu chip, mad, yea almost two complete cpus liderally glued together so to speak.As one cpu with almost double the output, think of it as the next step from the xeon style set up, where you have 2 cpus on a motherboard, but bus speed between core/ cpus is slow, now AMD have done a single cpu that contains 2 cpus inside it.And bus speed from cpu to cpu is , well ,awsome compared to the xeon set up for latency, l think we ll see alot more cores added over the next few years, until they find there heat limits.
16 core cpu after a shrinck maybe ........makes you wonder about virtual 3d games...

Actually the 4400+ isn't two 2100's. The 3800+ has the same clockspeed and cache as the 3200, but it runs games at about 3500+ speeds.

I think your saying two 3200s, but thats not what has me curious. How could a 3800 with the "same clockpeed and cache" as a 3200 POSSIBLY run a single threaded game as if it were faster when you don't take into account the offloading of other processes. Wouldn't the extra cpu interface actually create more latency?

No increased Latency, The crossbar has been in every A64 out their just never used. This is why Everyone thought the original Opteron was going to be Dual core a year or 2 before it came out. As for performance you can't just randomly exclude something just because it is not exactly the answer your looking for. For the most part windows and a few other application will reandomly do stuff with dual core who cares, so those cycles that are stolen on a single core would be being used for the game on a dual core so at the same speed performance would be higher on dual no matter what.

 

[Griffinhart]

Originally posted by: t0kinl3lunts
I think your saying two 3200s, but thats not what has me curious. How could a 3800 with the "same clockpeed and cache" as a 3200 POSSIBLY run a single threaded game as if it were faster when you don't take into account the offloading of other processes. Wouldn't the extra cpu interface actually create more latency?

I was as shocked as you are. But take a look at these game benches from Tech Report:
http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q3/athlon64-x2-3800/index.x?pg=4

In some cases the 3800 X2 is slower than the 3500+, in others it's faster. Either way, I would definately say it's faster than the basic 3200+ even with the same clock and cache.


Edit:

Notice the 4800+ X2 and the 4000+ scores on those charts as well. Both CPU's are 2.4Ghz parts with 1MB of Cache, yet the X2 is moderately faster than single core. It even beats the 55FX on some scores.

 

[t0kinl3lunts]

Originally posted by: Topweasel
No increased Latency, The crossbar has been in every A64 out their just never used. This is why Everyone thought the original Opteron was going to be Dual core a year or 2 before it came out. As for performance you can't just randomly exclude something just because it is not exactly the answer your looking for. For the most part windows and a few other application will reandomly do stuff with dual core who cares, so those cycles that are stolen on a single core would be being used for the game on a dual core so at the same speed performance would be higher on dual no matter what.

Ahh, I had no idea that they engineered the crossbar ahead of time, that would end the latency issue. But the 3800 being faster than the 3200 is mostly because of the stolen CPU cycles, meaning that it is only faster per task, not a faster desing in genral right? Either way I understand the noob explanation you gave him.