Why you should delay buying a Dual Core CPU

The only Intel Dual Core CPUs are the Sandy Bridge CPUs. They suport Direct X 10 but not Direct X 11.

Windows 8 makes use of hardware acceleration under Direct X 11 to substantially increase its performance, (and reduce energy usage).

The performance increase varies from 131% to 523%. Yes 523%. The speed increase is limited to 2D screen performance... but still. It is a big jump.

http://www.legitreviews.com/news/13727/

Win 8 is a disaster OS IMO metro being forced on desktop users will not work very well.
As for desktop performance whlst the numbers are interesting who is unhappy with Win 7 performance on the desktop? Not something that cuts much water for me benchmarking taken to new levels of oddness.
There are a lot of potential ways for DX11 to accelerate software performance, but most are a lot more intersting or useful than the desktop!

...all of this if you are a Windows user.

If Windows 8 really is so bad then maybe more people will move to Linux.

The problem is that Win8 is designed to *only* work with UEFI (Unified Extensible Firmware Interface) and Windows drives the hardware market. Linux will have to be revised to boot from UEFI -- or maybe it already has? My son just installed Ubuntu (11?) on his new i5 Ivy Bridge and he had to get a new bootloader. Without it, the system would not boot from the Ubuntu ISO disk...

I agree. But I predict there will be no great exodus to Linux, and only minor leakage to Apple.

All so true, but....

1. We have people here who will hop backwards on one foot to save a few watts of power. Windows 8 is designed to accomplish more with fewer machine cycles to conserve those watts... for the mobile market.

2. It's a free boost of performance. Who doesn't like snappier performance. That is why so many of us pay extra for SSDs. Snapper performance enhances the user experience. And actually in subtle ways improves the performance of the person interacting with the computer.

The Linux kernel has had UEFI support since 2000, it was the first OS to support it at this point as UEFI was a requirement for the IA64 architecture. Similarly Windows 2000 IA64 releases supported UEFI back this far, it was only with Windows Vista SP1 that MS added it to their common or garden operating systems. Whether or not one distro or another supports UEFI easily is down to their development goals and it will vary.

There remain concerns with UEFIs secure boot features at this point - if you have an ARM based Windows 8 system like a phone, MS says that it MUST be locked so that no other system can be installed.

The main advantage that typical desktop users will see with UEFI on Windows will be the addition of GPT partitioning to break the 2.2Tb barrier however UEFI is not a requirement for GPT, many BIOS systems can also use GPT to break the limit.

Are you sure these improvements don't apply to DX10 hardware too?

Apparently. Maybe this will become clearer as we near the windows 8 launch.

The title of this tread is seriously misleading. I'm pretty sure most everybody expects something about CPU-core-scaling and not about Intel's HD2000/HD3000 IGPs and it's speculative lack of acceleration in Windows 8, which doesn't concern people:

- who'll stick with Windows 7
- who'll stick with Linux or their Hackintoshes
- with AMD integrated graphics, some of which already support DX11
- with dedicated graphics cards
- who haven't noticed 2D acceleration to be lacking right now

A correct thread title would be: Win8 to offer 2D-performance bumps - but it's DX11 only (speculative)

---
Also: how is better 2D acceleration experienced? Smoother scrolling? I don't find my 2D experience to be lacking and I'm currently using a pre-SB IGP.

Tim
- Windows 7 - within 12 months of anti-hacking support being dropped almost no one will be using this OS
- who'll stick with Linux or their Hackintoshes - 3% and 0.3 %?
- with AMD integrated graphics, some of which already support DX11 - 10%????
- with dedicated graphics cards - That is sort of the reason to wait for Haswell, no one but hard rock gamers will be needing dedicated cards soon.... sort of like sound cards:
viewtopic.php?f=28&t=62186

You make a good point about "who haven't noticed 2D acceleration to be lacking right now". But then again I didn't appreciate the value of an SSD until I got one.

There might be no material effect on screen responsiveness. On the other hand the shared cache of the Haswell architecture might make the screen snappier in a way that a video card cannot.

For someone in a position of being able to make an elective buy or wait decision, this might be a reason to elect delay. Not for you, but maybe others.
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=64844&p=563542#p563542

Yeah, you're right ces, the group of people who are considering to buy a dual-core SB i3 right now instead of waiting for IB is large enough to warrant totally mislabeling this topic.

Calling this topic "Win8 2D performance better with Ivy Bridge" would just not cut it. Too specific and all.

The days of the dual core CPU are not numbered but clearly relegated to the budget league.
I suspect this will be the last time Intel can release a dual core processor in this price range. A better title would be why you should not bother buying a dual core processor, not delay it

That is a well taken point.

What is anti-hacking support?

What's wrong with dual core CPUs? For a lot of users they're just fine.

I second this opinion. I run a dual core E8500 C2D on one of my desktops (probably 5 yrs old now!), a SB 2500k on the other. Little to choose between on most of my apps. An SSD upgrade in the latter system vs a WD Velociraptor 300 in the former was a way more significant performance booster.

Personally i dont see any rush to move windows 8, if it follows the same pattern as other releases, this windows will suck, as did ME and VISTA, in between XP and 7. I dont think they will drop support for windows 7 so fast, maybe in 3 or 4 years, but hell XP is still more used than 7, so who knows... the only thing i know is that i like how 7 works and behaves in 6 computers that my family/me own, so i dont see much reason to upgrade, ill probably upgrade 3 pcs for haswell, probably will stick with 7 until i see 8 sp1.

No need to speculate.
Win 7 end of support date: 1/14/2020 (could conceivably be extended as happened with XP)


What's wrong is that Mr Spocko likes AMD. Considering what AMD calls a "core", a dual-core Bullsozer wouldn't be a very good CPU for instance. Thankfully AMD has not released such a chip (as far as I know).

There's nothing wrong with dual-core Sandy Bridges and there's no reason to delay a purchase unless you want to build an USFF PC and you're picky about the integrated graphics package. The G530 in particular was great value when it was released and still is.
Dual-core Ivy Bridges have been available for a while but they're not a very good buy. The most expensive dual-cores are questionable from a value perspective and that's not going to change.

Are they? Haven't seen dual cores (desktop) anywhere.

Yet another victim of Intel's confusing marketing?
That's a dual-core: http://forums.overclockers.com.au/showt ... ?t=1022021
It's been listed by shops for a while but the ridiculous retail price probably means no one has it in stock. OEMs have been using it in their builds though. So people are more likely to buy it as part of a USFF desktop such as this one: http://www.fujitsu.com/fts/products/com ... rimo-q910/
But outside of sales, specials and the like, the dual-cores most people are likely to buy aren't that much cheaper really. In countries where retailers do not routinely offer such deals, people are better off buying Pentiums or Celerons and those are only available in Sandy Bridge flavour.

Doubt it. I was talking about the availability.

Well, this part has been available for a couple of months or so in retail channels.

I don't deny I like AMD but that is because I think they have some good bang per buck options. I also find it impossible on an ethical level to purchase Intel products (that is my own personal view but a valid one IMO)
Though I did accept a Core i3 Laptop as a gift from a relative so I'm not entirely raged with anger..but as for spending my own money on Intel no way never.

Back to the CPU line-up there is nothing wrong at all with dual cores. If folks re-read what I said it is that they will be limited only to the budget end (which is below £60 ish) I think this is the last time Intel will be able to drag the i3's out and try to get the bones of £100 for them. The trend is increasingly mult threaded software and workloads, so I think more cores are required in future even with a good solid chip design (which Intel have)

I have no idea what a one module/2 core/threaded FX processor would do..I would think you need more threads to get a decent performance out of it.
I'm simply saying in the i3 price range it's quite competitive esp for people doing heavier lifting threaded workloads (ie myself with video/photo work) why would I make life harder with a dual core processor? Regarding lightly threaded workloads I simply don't need better performance for i-tunes (which is sub optimal anyway in this day and age)

For budget stuff sure dual core is just dandy..but then you'll hardly want to spend that much on a budget processor anyway (as mentioned other alternatives that make more sense)

What alternatives? Couldn't find a better AMD alternative for the G620 last time I looked (April).
i3 seems quite good as well: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=289

In Europe the Intel Core i3 2125 3.3 GHz is currently more expensive than the FX6100 (which is on a cashback right now least in the UK) There isn't a lot of doubt in my mind which would make a better choice for heavy multi threaded workloads such as photo and video work.

G620 is just a Pentium office PC type processor I would spend another £10 and get an AMD A6-3650 which is again a better choice for threaded workloads.

Cashback sucks (and should be forbidden).
In NL FX-6100 is 120 euro while i3 2120 is 107 and i3 2125 is 124. Let's say price is equal.

An i5?

Office PCs run office workloads, not threaded workloads...
The G620 wins at gaming too: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4524/the- ... t-tested/3

I've no problem with cashback it's money back right?
Ok you have to wait a bit for it but hey that's life.

I've built Athlon II x2's for office type pc's (or budget ones where the user is mostly do web/email/watching the odd video etc) and so far nobody has complained about them being too slow. Reality is it is in threaded workflow that you want that performance the most, not in lightly threaded work. I'd agree the x2 is a bit limited for heavy work which is where the x3/x4 Athlon II's come into the mix, pair it with decent ASrock budget board and you're good to go for a very modest outlay.

The i5 is a nice CPU but considerably more expensive than the i3 or the FX6100
For the type of stuff I do the i3 isn't a good choice because it can't deliver enough performance for the heavy threaded software that I use. It's not a bad CPU it's really a £65 odd one IMO. All about bang per buck really..well it is for me.

If you want the fastest processors then Intel is the obvious choice..i7 range.

Depends, in some cases gaming performance (with discrete GPU) is more important.

True, but since performance is better that's usually fine. Only if you're on a strict budget and have specific workloads the FX-6100 might be the better CPU. But if you're into photo and video editing I don't think that 50 euro for the i5 matters.

I used to spend quite a hefty sum on the latest best processors. I've learnt my lesson the hard way the latest greatest CPU is in a few years lower than a mid range one..and years later even the budget ones exceed the performance.

I think a sensible compromise is a mid level point for most buyers. Unless time is money work wise..then fire away and splash the cash.
Gaming is something a bit different so you make a build that is suitable for the intended use. Obviously it would be overkill putting an i5 processor in a machine that's browsing or doing emails and very basic office tasks. Even the cheapest CPU you can lay your hands on does that rather well

We often forget how things have really moved on, bar heavy duty rendering most processors breeze through modern tasks with ease. I suppose 4k video will punish even fast processors, but I don't see 4k taking off for a long time.