Dual-Core Better Then Single?
- Thread starter whitesti
- Start date
Each cores run at 2Ghz. You could think of it as having 4Ghz of CPU available to you.
The way you stated that is rather interesting. Often times people think two cores at 2.0Ghz equals one core at 4.0Ghz, which is not the case at all. Your wording avoids that conflict but it doesnt really clear it up either.
Unless a program is multithreaded then only one core will work with it, while the other works with another program. This is why dual core is so smooth, your cores are able to be used by different programs and therefore you dont have one over saturated core.
WMP has to be pretty bloated.. last time I heard MP3 skipping it was on a P133. I also don't play games so long and boring I have to browse the web(well, I understand how it can be with a MMORPG.. but I won't ever play a MMORPG).
It's the music playback part that made my go agressive on you . .
Trying to play something like Half Life 2 or Farcry plus music made the games shudder, especially as it would go to the next track, not the music. The main problem is any program that is going to demand processor dedication, even for a little bit of time, is going to cause hell with a single core AMD processor because it has no way of limiting how much the program can use. No easy way anyway without modifying a few things which the average user would be hard pressed to do.
I think you are a little bit confused on what dual core is.
An AMD 3800+ X2 processor in your computer would be exactly like having two AMD 3000+ processors. The 3800+ X2 has two physical processors with their own cache and everything which can operate independent of eachother. A dual core processor is exactly like getting two processors only its in one neat little package so you dont need two sockets.
That is becoming too bold of a statement. Just about every new game that is getting released is encountering a GPU and CPU bottleneck. Dont forget as well if you're a user that upgrades their graphics often then the older games you play will become CPU limited rather quickly. Farcry for example is now a CPU limited game for the most part to a user with mid/high end SLI/Crossfire or a high end single card. I think the same can be said for Doom 3, Prey, and Quake 4 unless you play on 1600x1200 resolutions or higher and push the AA. FEAR and Oblivion are two good examples of GPU and CPU bottlenecks at work.
To be honest, as i think most people are seeing, games really have to go the way of SMP and soon in order to function at acceptable rates. They cant rely on MHz bumping anymore and i think thats really showing true with some of the more recent titles. Oblivion is one game that i expect to have bad performance (50FPS being good=bad performance in a way) on its highest settings for a long long time because it relies on that primitive leap in performance boosting to gain frames. Redesign that engine to take advantage of 2 or 4 processors and i think you'd find a way to get a serious performance leap. Crysis is another game that may have poor performance regardless of the computer hardware for awhile unless they already planned for the processor issue and DX10 helps alot.
Last edited by a moderator:
standing ovation
Regular
It certainly was a simplistic statement, but I meant to emphasize the "at your pricepoint" in this particular case. I don't think someone budgeting $150 for an A64 S939 system at this point in time is packing a GPU fast enough to be notably limited by either of the CPUs being considered here.
But I left it unsaid that if you're buying $300+ GPUs, and especially dual-GPU setups, you've already considered having a CPU fast enough to not hold you back. And limited is a relative term considering the performance spread with a single XTX is 84+fps with A64s and C2Ds. FEAR doesn't seem too CPU-limited, and Oblivion seems to be the extreme outlier.
Anyway, yeah, a bold statement. It'll be challenged as CPU makers and game devs transition to dual-core, definitely.
But I left it unsaid that if you're buying $300+ GPUs, and especially dual-GPU setups, you've already considered having a CPU fast enough to not hold you back. And limited is a relative term considering the performance spread with a single XTX is 84+fps with A64s and C2Ds. FEAR doesn't seem too CPU-limited, and Oblivion seems to be the extreme outlier.
Anyway, yeah, a bold statement. It'll be challenged as CPU makers and game devs transition to dual-core, definitely.
standing ovation
Regular
What's so bad about Mac ... an Intel Mac with PC parts?
They're over priced for one. Using OSX would make me completely relearn a new program for all of my old ones, etc. I'm perfectly fine with Windows and sometimes Linux. No need for a expensive Mac. Plus I'd much rather build my own system knowing every bit of hardware that is used inside.
It's still a Mac.
(Sorry, just being a stereo-typical PC head. I really ain't got nothing against Macs 'cept their mice philosophy....I use an 8 button mouse. )
(Sorry, just being a stereo-typical PC head. I really ain't got nothing against Macs 'cept their mice philosophy....I use an 8 button mouse.
)standing ovation
Regular
You guys are skirting the obvious: what could four processors do for you?
You guys are skirting the obvious: what could four processors do for you?
What? Its not impressive, you can go out and buy a system with four right now if you wanted also you know.
standing ovation
Regular
I know. And I know that you know. And you know that I know that Apple has fogged your perception. (Does that make sense?)
Two processors have more computing potential than one; so four of them should have more than two. But a tiny logo keeps you (and digitalwanderer) from admitting that.
I know. And I know that you know. And you know that I know that Apple has fogged your perception. (Does that make sense?)
Two processors have more computing potential than one; so four of them should have more than two. But a tiny logo keeps you (and digitalwanderer) from admitting that.
You're looking for biased where there is none, at least not on my part.
Its just simply nothing impressive, yes it has four cores but what about that? You've been able to build a four core system for a good while now, pick up a Opteron, or soon come around October Intel will release their consumer Core 2 Quadro.
So, it has the typical Apple things you'd expect, not for all but nice none the less, I just dont find it very impressive.
Amdahl's Law?I know. And I know that you know. And you know that I know that Apple has fogged your perception. (Does that make sense?)
Two processors have more computing potential than one; so four of them should have more than two. But a tiny logo keeps you (and digitalwanderer) from admitting that.
(paging Chalnoth to refute Amdahl's Law, paging Chalnoth to refute Amdahl's Law)
standing ovation
Regular
Okay smarty pants. Got any more rebuttals?
So what? You are failing to see my point. Just because its an Apple doesnt make it special. You can build a PC with eight cores also you know. Apple is never on the bleeding edge of technology.
Blazkowicz
Legend
quad pentium pro PCs, that was what, ten years ago?
Blazkowicz
Legend
oh, great. it's not like you can do that on socket 775 (if you get a recent mobo that is), 940, 939, AM2, or F. Replacing a CPU by another with twice the cores, that's genius, only Apple could make it work.
Similar threads
