Please register or login. There are 0 registered and 1470 anonymous users currently online. Current bandwidth usage: 326.30 kbit/s December 01 - 12:27pm EST 
Hardware Analysis
      
Forums Product Prices
  Contents 
 
 

  Latest Topics 
 

More >>
 

    
 
 

  You Are Here: 
 
/ Forums / Dual core, quad core processors hit a snag?
 

  Re: Dual core, quad core processors hit a snag? 
 
 Author 
 Date Written 
 Tools 
Continue Reading on Page: 1, 2, 3, Next >>
Byron Donald Oct 21, 2006, 03:59pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: Dual core, quad core processors hit a snag?
I have a friend who has an AMD 4400 and I've never seen anything boot up so fast. You can get a 4400 for $198 at Newegg.com right now. So why not go dual-core? That processor was like $700 a year ago.

Want to enjoy less advertisements and more features? Click here to become a Hardware Analysis registered user.
Bits 'n' Pieces Oct 24, 2006, 03:36am EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: Dual core, quad core processors hit a snag?
Excuse my late reply but I believe Sander hit the spot.

Yes, not many problems now utilise that extra cores, there are some, but again, common everyday average people used programs still run on the single core.

And yes, there are certain applications, whether games or software, that can benefit from it.

Everyone, or at least most here, are saying how they've achieved better speeds due to the multi-core, and how Sander missed the point of the multi-core. I beg to differ. I might be wrong, but this is what I think.

Oh, and Sander did mention that unless your using those programs that benefit from it, such as 3DS MAX, Maya, Photoshop CS2, etc, video editing, audio, image, etc, it isn't going to help much. Which again, everyone or most are basically saying, improved my Maya speeds, etc.

So anyways, basically, you believe your computer and software applications is running faster. Remember, I could be wrong, but isn't it only because now you don't have to stress your core?

OK. A single core can handle something at X speeds. Good. Once you put in another application and multi-task, it has to split its speeds so now the two applications, or more, can only run at Y speeds.

With multi-core, you still run at only X speed. You know notice that once you open another application, both applications can run at X speed due to the extra core. Not because it's faster. Only because the core doesn't have to stress itself anymore. I think this is the misconception people are having and I think Sander did a nice explanation of it.

Again, if you multi-task a lot, you'll benefit. That's what Sander was trying to say I believe. If you use software that utilise it also. But in reality, they aren't running any better than they already do. You single-tasking, you have no benefit of such equipment.

Anyways, hope that made any sense.

And yes, it is good to get multi-core but it's not absolute.

----------
Pyron, an alternative to Dell and HP. Available at Bits & Pieces - Computers
http://bnp-bitsnpieces.com/computers
Director
Darren Reynolds Oct 24, 2006, 10:17am EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: Dual core, quad core processors hit a snag?
Well, with so many of us saying that having multi core cpu's is a real advantage then your assertion and Sanders isn't swaying me ... sorry.

I agree that the new quad's are probably overkill for most tasks for noobs, but the dual core cpu's are a real advantage across many applications ... the general machine responsiveness of these is such a pleasure ... no bogging down watching the egg timer spin ... well unless your really on a furtive 3D modelling trip or something actually scientific.

I have played with heaps of them over the last year ...

The quads might have "perceived" problems with bandwidth for the Intelites because of their "so called crap" FSB... but the Kents still seem pretty impressive from what I have seen ... <droool>. The pure grunt from this CPU is awesome and I have begged a local NDA tester here who has 2 of them but the mongrel won't sell me one.

AMD's answer is slow in coming too, though the X2's are no slouch.

Single core is just about dead if your serious about your hardware fixation... trade it or upgrade it if you can ... you won't be dissappointed. Why live in the past ... hey I am going to C2D next (unless an unanticipated "hammer" blow falls from god / Hector). Doubt that from my reading ... sadly. The AMD X2's and the Pentium D's are both good ... even my 2.66 805 at work craps all over the older Northwoods and Prescott single cores for productivity ... bit hot tho.

Our thirst for power and speed ...

I want a C2D or a C2Q ... possibly a C3PO will do ... he must have a mean CPU I can retrofit to my rig ... oooh voice activated.

Sander ... so what's powering the PC you mainly use perchance ??




Yours Truly Oct 24, 2006, 01:25pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: Dual core, quad core processors hit a snag?
If I don't have a quad core processor, how else am I going to excel at my mission critical, strategically paramount, all-important application - 3D Mark? heh :O

Bits 'n' Pieces Oct 31, 2006, 03:19am EST Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: Dual core, quad core processors hit a snag?
What I'm trying to say is, you have two cores for example at 2 GHz. The difference is between the single core and dual core is, single, you run one program at 2 GHz. Nice and fast. Dual core, you run the same program, it'll still be at 2 GHz, unless the program utilises the second core. Else, you can run two programs, both at 2 GHz. Thus you don't notice down speed, because it is 2:2, just as single core was 1:1. Single core running two programs, it'll be 1:2 or so. You'll notice that down speed. Dual core running three programs, 2:3, you'll get a down speed, but not as much as single core doing 1:2.

Enough maths, but that's what I'm trying to point out and I think that's what Sander was pointing out also. Why dual core isn't needed for a lot of users at the moment is because the normal user doesn't require such extensive multi-tasking. Just browsing, using messenger, typing up a word document and using excel, of course, they won't run at their full speeds, or they might, depending on how much power they take up. So forth. So they multi-task just fine.

For the more higher end, professional level where you've got 3D applications happening, yes, having multiple core is definitely going to help.

But this is bottle necking. If you run a single program on a dual core, I would say it will run slightly faster since it has a bit of extra power. Even if the program doesn't utilise it, the PC will most likely. But again, where's the need of that? Single will still run fine with no problems.

So yeah, higher end users will benefit from it, lower enders won't. Maybe, depending, but at the end of the day, it's not absolutely necessary. I think that was the message. The rest is just technicality.

Or maybe I've been misinformed of how all this stuff works. But at the end of the day, I rather hook up a PS3 with it's cell processor, 8 cores, directly connected to the GPU or something which can do uber quality. :P

----------
Pyron, an alternative to Dell and HP. Available at Bits & Pieces - Computers
http://bnp-bitsnpieces.com/computers
Director
Dublin_Gunner Oct 31, 2006, 08:35am EST Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: Dual core, quad core processors hit a snag?
yeah, maybe when the PS3 decides not to melt itself from its own casing it would be a good investment!


But the whole thing here, is that Sander didnt take into account who these chips are aimed at.

High end Dual core & Quad core CPU's are NOT aimed at the average joe, they're not even priced in that segment. The Quad cores (by Intel anyway) won even have a mainstream price point, they'll be $1000+. So saying they're useless for the average person doesnt even make sense, its taken completely out of context.

A CPU at that price point is aimed at only 2 people, the uber enthusiast, or the professional. Bringing 'average people' into the argument is ludicrous.

Lancool PC K62
Phenom II x3 @ 3.5Ghz
4GB DDR2-800
ASUS GTX570 DirectCU II
Bits 'n' Pieces Oct 31, 2006, 11:14am EST Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: Dual core, quad core processors hit a snag?

----------
Pyron, an alternative to Dell and HP. Available at Bits & Pieces - Computers
http://bnp-bitsnpieces.com/computers
Director
Dublin_Gunner Oct 31, 2006, 11:45am EST Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: Dual core, quad core processors hit a snag?
Well in that paragraph he answers his own query.

The software that 'needs' to be written, has already been written, the majority of which has been written for years.

Its not like multi core / multi CPU processing is a new thing. Its just now bringing these enhancements to the desktop.

So for those people who might already use that type of software, but never had the funds for a 5-10k workstation, can now readily benefit from a multi processor platform, and WILL see the performance difference.

I mean, neither Intel nor AMD have ever stated that these CPU's were for your general office duties, and they're not priced in that segment anyway, as I said above.

Maybe I worded it all ass-ways (which wouldnt be a 1st occurance for me!), but Sanders argument / statement is either just wrong, taken from the wrong standpoint, or merely stating the obvious.

So moving on from that, was there an underlying point to the article at all?


Lancool PC K62
Phenom II x3 @ 3.5Ghz
4GB DDR2-800
ASUS GTX570 DirectCU II
Mike L. Oct 31, 2006, 12:16pm EST Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: Dual core, quad core processors hit a snag?
Dublin Gunner said:
The Quad cores (by Intel anyway) won even have a mainstream price point, they'll be $1000+.


Just so you know, the initial release of Core 2 Quad will be an Extreme Edition.

___________________________________________
I am what you would call depressingly comfortable...
Dublin_Gunner Oct 31, 2006, 12:29pm EST Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: Dual core, quad core processors hit a snag?
I know, hence the price!

Lancool PC K62
Phenom II x3 @ 3.5Ghz
4GB DDR2-800
ASUS GTX570 DirectCU II
Bits 'n' Pieces Oct 31, 2006, 11:35pm EST Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: Dual core, quad core processors hit a snag?
DublinGunner said:
So for those people who might already use that type of software, but never had the funds for a 5-10k workstation, can now readily benefit from a multi processor platform, and WILL see the performance difference.


But that's what I'm trying to say. Unless you do that sort of work, you won't benefit from it. I think this article is more of a clarification of the multi-core systems for people who are still confused about it and also the benefits of having it, and the waste of having it when you don't need it. Or whatever.

Anyways, yes, I am one of the people who'll benefit from it. Conroe E6300, here I come. It ain't much, but it's all I can afford. :P

----------
Pyron, an alternative to Dell and HP. Available at Bits & Pieces - Computers
http://bnp-bitsnpieces.com/computers
Director
Dublin_Gunner Nov 01, 2006, 04:33am EST Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: Dual core, quad core processors hit a snag?
Not much??

The E6300 is a fantastic CPU, and overclocks like a champ.

Lancool PC K62
Phenom II x3 @ 3.5Ghz
4GB DDR2-800
ASUS GTX570 DirectCU II
Shadow_Ops_Airman1 Nov 01, 2006, 10:07pm EST Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: Dual core, quad core processors hit a snag?
Ive noticed that with games, they are smooth with my old stuff, hence a P4 EE 3.4 (Northwood) and a AMD Athlon XP Barton 3200+, both with R9800 Graphics, ya graphics could be upgraded, but my laptop is at its end, the Main rig i can slap in a x1950 Pro for the last of the line for AGP, course reason i havent upgraded to Dual core yet is because i did not notice a difference of performance between my buddies system that had a 7800 GTX, A64 X2 4400+ and 2 Gigs of ram. Perhaps if you were able to permanently assign certain apps to certain cores without having to do it all the time would be great. Those who surf the internet, use MS Office, Play DVD Movies, and play the occaisional game dont need Dual Core CPUs, let alone a P4 or P3. Ive had stuff running fine under XP with a P2 at 266 MHz, and 512 MB Ram.

AMD Athlon XP-M 2500+ (133x14= 1867MHz) (209x11= 2299MHz)
DFI LP NF2 Ultra-B (Hellfire 3EG Rev2)
Antec SX800, Neo HE 500, 4 Antec 8CM Fans
Thermalright SI-97 1 Antec Tricool 12CM Fan
CL SB XFi Xtreme Music
2x Barracuda HDs (250/400)
2x Samsung Write
ghost_buster Nov 06, 2006, 10:08am EST Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: Dual core, quad core processors hit a snag?
Hi!!!!
My PC:
CPU: Intel Core2 Extreme 3
RAM: 3 GB Kingston HyperX
Graphic Card: HIS Radeon X1950XTX
Soundcard: Creative Sound Blaster Audigy 4

that's it...

ghost_buster Nov 06, 2006, 10:09am EST Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: Dual core, quad core processors hit a snag?
and
2x 120GH HardDisc

Mort1616 Nov 06, 2006, 07:43pm EST Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: Dual core, quad core processors hit a snag?
I think the underlying message is just to take stock of what you want your computer to do. And not just to buy it because its the best new thing on the market as some hardware freaks are wanton to do. I don't get anything of 'slagging of multi-core' from Sanders article, just a little pointer. That might seem obvious to most of us who have participated here, but I suspect that this article will go out to more people that the dozen who have participated here. So just try to stick to the discussion instead of slagging off what people have to say.

Cheers
Mort

I'm a mawg. Half man. Half dog.

Hey, I'm my own best friend.

Rig spec in profile.
BoT Nov 07, 2006, 01:31am EST Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: Dual core, quad core processors hit a snag?
this is pretty much what i think about it, well put together
http://www.bit-tech.net/columns/2006/11/05/In_defence_of_multi_core/1.html

dual core, quad core , multi core - it's evolution. with the better hardware will come better software and with better software will come better hardware.
do i need it? depends. do i want it defenitally.

You can either be part of the problem or be part of the solution.
Codisha - http://www.codisha.com
Reviews - http://www.codisha.com/reviews/reviews.htm
Darren Reynolds Nov 07, 2006, 08:27am EST Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: Dual core, quad core processors hit a snag?
DublinGunner said ... "I mean, neither Intel nor AMD have ever stated that these CPU's were for your general office duties, and they're not priced in that segment anyway, as I said above."

Er ... it is policy now that Gov standard office PC's here under CUA ( in Aussieland) are all dual core (Pentium D's) and moving to Core2Duo's shortly.

General Office duties ??? Dual Core ???

Um ... what market segment was that you were referring too???

Even the Government are moving to Dual Core ... they are usually last ... after the "average Joe".

Like it or not ... everyone is getting in on minimising the egg timer spin cycle.

Or you can live in the single core stutters ... Good luck with trying to run the next OS ... heh heh.

Defend the article if you like, but my advice to any sane person is to buy a new PC with a dual core as a bare minimum ... and there are dual core CPU's across all of the market segments.


Dublin_Gunner Nov 07, 2006, 09:08am EST Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: Dual core, quad core processors hit a snag?
I was referring to Core 2 Quad.

Not only that, but any average joe is NOT going to be spending $1k on a CPU alone. So it makes your point and Sanders redundant. (unless of course you're referring to your government saying offices should be outfitted with 1k Core 2 Extreme & Quad CPU's?)

And strange that your government can impose a policy like that, I dont imagine many governments around the world getting away with it. I'd say businesses must be in uproar that they'd have to spend so much on unnecessary hardware.

Quite possibly whoever came up with that proposal has not got the first clue about what theyre talking about.

The fact of the matter is, more and more pre-built PC's are coming with dual core CPU's anyway, so there's no problem there. And I never dissed having a dual core. Even if the extra core isnt doing much, the CPU's are generally faster anyway.

Or you can live in the single core stutters ... Good luck with trying to run the next OS ... heh heh.


I take it you havent actually tried Vista then. I've tried 3 different releases so far, and all run perfectly on a 3000+.

Of course, I have ran it on X2 & Core 2 CPU's of my own, and it is faster, but the single core in no way stutters etc as you say.

Lancool PC K62
Phenom II x3 @ 3.5Ghz
4GB DDR2-800
ASUS GTX570 DirectCU II
CrAsHnBuRnXp Nov 07, 2006, 11:58am EST Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: Dual core, quad core processors hit a snag?
Darren Reynolds said:
Or you can live in the single core stutters ... Good luck with trying to run the next OS ... heh heh.

Defend the article if you like, but my advice to any sane person is to buy a new PC with a dual core as a bare minimum ... and there are dual core CPU's across all of the market segments.

Dual core as a bare minimum? I dont think so. I ran Vista RC2 with no stutters what so ever on an AMD64 3200+ with 2GB of ram. Ran fine. I had no stutters or slow downs. You do however, want at least 2GB of RAM to be able to run it. It eats over 500MB of RAM on a fresh install. (Or was it 600MB? I dont remember) Anyway, my point is that you do not need a dual core as a bare minimum as a single core will do just fine.


Continue Reading on Page: 1, 2, 3, Next >>

 

    
 
 

  Topic Tools 
 
RSS UpdatesRSS Updates
 

  Related Articles 
 
 

  Newsletter 
 
A weekly newsletter featuring an editorial and a roundup of the latest articles, news and other interesting topics.

Please enter your email address below and click Subscribe.