 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Quad core rant.
 |
•
•
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 243
Reputation: 
Solved Threads: 24
Posting Whiz in Training
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by jermaghs07 
Ok. first of all it's Hyper-threading, not multithreading.
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by jermaghs07
why do you think AMD hasn't built many quad core CPU's. because they realize that they can still get alot of performance out of dual core
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by jermaghs07
Second, it's still a new technology, and they haven't perfected it yet
•
•
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 69
Reputation:
Solved Threads: 0
Junior Poster in Training
All I know that is that I find the Quad Core excellent for running DAWs like Pro Tools. The LE version of Pro Tools uses the host processor to run everthing, including CPU thirsty plug-ins. HD systems come with PCI Express cards with DSP processors to take the load off the processor but cost way more.
So, now the bedroom musician/engineer is getting roughly half the perfomance of a low-end HD system but about 4 times that of an LE system at a fraction of the cost!
I haven't noticed that good a performance jump in Windows XP, but I reckon thats partly due to having one hard drive but HL2 only uses 55-60% on a single core!
Granted jermaghs, you may feel Quad Core is pointless, so go for the Dual Core option instead. It's certainly capable of what a standard user right up to a gamer needs, but the Quad Core isn't totally useless. It's been an absolute joy for me working with high-end audio software and not maxxing out my CPU.
If I was sloppily mixing a recording I could definetely max out the Quad Core! And it wouldn't bog down my 2Gb of RAM (yes, 2GB!) before that because plugins are barely 1Mb in size and I/O streams do not increase to or from the RAM when more are added.
So, now the bedroom musician/engineer is getting roughly half the perfomance of a low-end HD system but about 4 times that of an LE system at a fraction of the cost!
I haven't noticed that good a performance jump in Windows XP, but I reckon thats partly due to having one hard drive but HL2 only uses 55-60% on a single core!
Granted jermaghs, you may feel Quad Core is pointless, so go for the Dual Core option instead. It's certainly capable of what a standard user right up to a gamer needs, but the Quad Core isn't totally useless. It's been an absolute joy for me working with high-end audio software and not maxxing out my CPU.
If I was sloppily mixing a recording I could definetely max out the Quad Core! And it wouldn't bog down my 2Gb of RAM (yes, 2GB!) before that because plugins are barely 1Mb in size and I/O streams do not increase to or from the RAM when more are added.
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by The New Normal
I think they're both valid terms. Hyperthreading is a form of multithreading.
Hyperthreading was like having one and a half cores.
But it didn't work very well. Multiple threads got in each others way when they needed the same part of the CPU at the same time. Plus the cache wasn't well designed for multiple threads, they would end up throwing each others data out of the cache. This actually decreased performance in some cases. This resulted in some software companies issuing advice to disable hyperthreading.
Multithreading is more of a software / operating concept for having multiple light weight tasks executing at the same time. It isn't a hardware feature. Meaning you can have multiple threads on any CPU.
With the right software, quad core CPUs (and 8 core, dual CPU quads) thrash the pants off dual core and single core CPUs. But at the moment there isn't much of the 'right' software around. This is slowly changing.
I would predict that almost all of the games that come out in 2009 will make good use of quad core CPUs. As will mainstream CPU intensive programs like Photoshop.
Last edited by Passmark; Feb 4th, 2008 at 12:02 am.
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by san_fran_crisko
Granted jermaghs, you may feel Quad Core is pointless, so go for the Dual Core option instead. It's certainly capable of what a standard user right up to a gamer needs, but the Quad Core isn't totally useless. It's been an absolute joy for me working with high-end audio software and not maxxing out my CPU.
If I was sloppily mixing a recording I could definetely max out the Quad Core! And it wouldn't bog down my 2Gb of RAM (yes, 2GB!) before that because plugins are barely 1Mb in size and I/O streams do not increase to or from the RAM when more are added.
Im just saying that there is no need for the average computer user/Gamer to buy a quad core. they are really expensive and the performance increase isn't really noticeable unless you are doing some hard core computing.
Screw school... I just started a 14 hour Raid
yeah hyperthreading was bad - they removed it for the Core chips (the xenons still use superthreading i think)
the p4 was bad - it was all about clockspeed but they couldnt keep incrreasing it (4ghz barrier essentially) so it was scrapped and they based Core on the pentium M (which was based on the pentium 3 and the celeron) as these were more efficient. Its this increased efficience that matters. A core solo (1 core) of lower clockspeed than a P4 can outperform it under benchmarks by a large margin due to this.
the p4 was bad - it was all about clockspeed but they couldnt keep incrreasing it (4ghz barrier essentially) so it was scrapped and they based Core on the pentium M (which was based on the pentium 3 and the celeron) as these were more efficient. Its this increased efficience that matters. A core solo (1 core) of lower clockspeed than a P4 can outperform it under benchmarks by a large margin due to this.
If i am helpful, please give me reputation points.
•
•
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,765
Reputation:
Solved Threads: 85
•
•
•
•
Ok. first of all it's Hyper-threading, not multithreading.
•
•
•
•
thats just because you are using a 1.8. if you had a 2.3 or a 3 you wouldn't have that problem.
I have friends who were part of the core tech development team in Intel, and according to them core technology is there to 1. make multithreading a usable option for all platforms 2. expand CPU capacity horizontally, meaning expand parallel tasking instead of speed and 3. due to speeds staying the same - reduce power consumption and heating.
Last edited by DimaYasny; Feb 4th, 2008 at 4:00 am.
Real stupidity always beats Artificial Intelligence. (Terry Pratchett)
BA BizMg, MCSE, DCSE, Linux+, Network+
BA BizMg, MCSE, DCSE, Linux+, Network+
yes
like i said, a core outperforms a faster clocked p4
its efficnency that matters
like i said, a core outperforms a faster clocked p4
its efficnency that matters
If i am helpful, please give me reputation points.
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by DimaYasny
just read what I said.
that's total bs.
I have friends who were part of the core tech development team in Intel, and according to them core technology is there to 1. make multithreading a usable option for all platforms 2. expand CPU capacity horizontally, meaning expand parallel tasking instead of speed and 3. due to speeds staying the same - reduce power consumption and heating.
You said you had a 1.8 dual core and where having roblems with running programs. all i said was if you had a 2.3 or a 3 dual core you would have less of a problem.
And you can't argue that a 3GHz dual core will out perform a 1.8GHz Dual core.
Screw school... I just started a 14 hour Raid
•
•
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,765
Reputation:
Solved Threads: 85
yes, but a quad core 1.83 will outperform a 3ghz dual core
Real stupidity always beats Artificial Intelligence. (Terry Pratchett)
BA BizMg, MCSE, DCSE, Linux+, Network+
BA BizMg, MCSE, DCSE, Linux+, Network+
|
Other Threads in the Motherboards, CPUs and RAM Forum
- Previous Thread: Dell Laptop Acting Funny
- Next Thread: upgrading an old laptop
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
You need to join our community in order to build your list of favorite forums. You can visit the forum index for a listing of all forums.
Related Forum Features
Latest Motherboards, CPUs and RAM Posts
- Today's Posts
- Unanswered Threads
