Dual processor games machine?

[Pat2641]

I am about to embark on a new build project and fortunately I have a fare bit of cash to spend. I am wondering whether the new intel xeon is the answer to my dreams. I want the ultimate games machine and want to know if I can run a dual 3.06 GHz pair of twins, and if this is actually gonna give me any significant improvements over the single 3.2 GHz P4 I had originally intended.
I found a nice motherboard for these, and there weren't alot of options, from super micro, the X5DAE but it looks wrong. There are those large PCI slots on the end and not to many of the short ones, that the hardware I intend to put in, use.
This is probably because it is intended for a workstation but there must be a way surely or a mother board specific for the job I want.
I don't care that older games don't run with dual processors as I don't intend to buy any. Is this just a pipe dream? Should I just wait and get the Pentium 5 when it comes out or can you suggest some pointers.
Thanks,

[daveleau]

Very few (if any) games benefit from dual processors. Most dual processor mobos are not optimized for gaming and video throughput, so chances are- a dual processor machine will perform worse than a single. Applications ah to be built with the expressed idea in mind to utilize multiple processors. There really isn't a market for this, so almost no games are set up for this. The only app I use that can use 2 processors is Photoshop (besides Win2K Pro).

I'd suggest getting a great single processor and great nForce 2-based mobo and the top-of-the-line ATi or nVidia card. RobRich mentioned some better cards that he likes recently, so maybe he'll chime in here on that account.

yah dual is overkill, the only game off the top of my head that uses it is Q3

[Pat2641]

Wow, swift reply thanx. I was still checking my spelling.

Is the intel P5 worth waiting for then or am I gonna end up always waiting for the next big thing?

[daveleau]

Well, I guess it'd be kind of hard to say before the actual benchmarks are published. ...And I tend to lean towards AMD anyway.

[Scott Tiger]

While I'm not one to keep up on processors and such I haven't even heard rumors of a P5 yet. Seems like P4 would be the processor of choice right now if you've got the extra bucks it takes to get one.

[NDC]

http://www.geocities.com/a_noms/SMPgamelist.html

[Pat2641]

Good site. Thanx. Have not seen any P5 benchmarks either but there is some info on it at

http://lowendpc.com/rumormill/2002/0709.html


Thanx all. You've been a great help

[Scott Tiger]

If there's more than a bit of truth to that site about it's comments concerning the P5 then I'm very afraid for AMD.. very afraid.

Thanks for the linkage Pat2641.

[daveleau]

I am looking forward to the AMD 64 bit processors. That is going to be one big upgrade, I think. The whole reason Mac can even compete with PC systems speed-wise at such low MHz is the fact that their pipeline is much wider for data throughput. Their 128bit processors have a distinct advantage in some areas. A true and unbiased benchmark is very difficult to have between platforms.