943,587 Members | Top Members by Rank

Hardware and Software > PC Hardware > Motherboards, CPUs and RAM > Quad core rant.
Ad:
You are currently viewing page 2 of this multi-page discussion thread; Jump to the first page
Permalink
Feb 3rd, 2008
0

Re: Quad core rant.

Click to Expand / Collapse  Quote originally posted by jermaghs07 ...
Ok. first of all it's Hyper-threading, not multithreading.
I think they're both valid terms. Hyperthreading is a form of multithreading.


Click to Expand / Collapse  Quote 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
I feel sorry for AMD. They have the only true quad-core CPU (the intel is just 2 dual cores squashed together while the Phenom is 4 cores on 1 die) and yet the AMD is still well behind on performance. If they could get it together we could all enjoy unlocked multipliers at decent prices, yay!

Click to Expand / Collapse  Quote originally posted by jermaghs07 ...
Second, it's still a new technology, and they haven't perfected it yet
Very true. If you want optimum price/performance right now, quads are not the way to go. Personally I want to future-proof, but that's just me. I'll be getting a Q9450 in the next few months
Reputation Points: 34
Solved Threads: 29
Posting Whiz in Training
The New Normal is offline Offline
280 posts
since Nov 2007
Permalink
Feb 3rd, 2008
0

Re: Quad core rant.

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.
Reputation Points: 10
Solved Threads: 0
Junior Poster in Training
san_fran_crisko is offline Offline
83 posts
since Nov 2006
Permalink
Feb 4th, 2008
0

Re: Quad core rant.

Click to Expand / Collapse  Quote originally posted by The New Normal ...
I think they're both valid terms. Hyperthreading is a form of multithreading.
Hyperthreading was a term Intel made up for a hardware feature they included on their P4CPUs which allowed multiple threads (and processes) to run partially in parallel on the CPU.

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.
Reputation Points: 36
Solved Threads: 0
Light Poster
Passmark is offline Offline
32 posts
since Jan 2008
Permalink
Feb 4th, 2008
0

Re: Quad core rant.

Click to Expand / Collapse  Quote 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.
I don't think that quad core is useless, like all things they have their place. My whole problem is, they aren't practical. there are some things that could definitely utilize a quad core. But for the average user it is almost pointless.

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.
Reputation Points: 49
Solved Threads: 16
Posting Whiz
jermaghs07 is offline Offline
307 posts
since Jan 2008
Permalink
Feb 4th, 2008
0

Re: Quad core rant.

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.
Moderator
Featured Poster
Reputation Points: 1764
Solved Threads: 574
Moderator
jbennet is offline Offline
16,485 posts
since Apr 2005
Permalink
Feb 4th, 2008
0

Re: Quad core rant.

Quote ...
Ok. first of all it's Hyper-threading, not multithreading.
just read what I said.

Quote ...
thats just because you are using a 1.8. if you had a 2.3 or a 3 you wouldn't have that problem.
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.
Last edited by DimaYasny; Feb 4th, 2008 at 4:00 am.
Moderator
Featured Poster
Reputation Points: 183
Solved Threads: 89
Posting Virtuoso
DimaYasny is offline Offline
1,772 posts
since Jan 2007
Permalink
Feb 4th, 2008
0

Re: Quad core rant.

yes

like i said, a core outperforms a faster clocked p4

its efficnency that matters
Moderator
Featured Poster
Reputation Points: 1764
Solved Threads: 574
Moderator
jbennet is offline Offline
16,485 posts
since Apr 2005
Permalink
Feb 4th, 2008
0

Re: Quad core rant.

Click to Expand / Collapse  Quote 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 missed my point!

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.
Reputation Points: 49
Solved Threads: 16
Posting Whiz
jermaghs07 is offline Offline
307 posts
since Jan 2008
Permalink
Feb 4th, 2008
0

Re: Quad core rant.

yes, but a quad core 1.83 will outperform a 3ghz dual core
Moderator
Featured Poster
Reputation Points: 183
Solved Threads: 89
Posting Virtuoso
DimaYasny is offline Offline
1,772 posts
since Jan 2007
Permalink
Feb 4th, 2008
0

Re: Quad core rant.

Quote ...
but a quad core 1.83 will outperform a 3ghz dual core
This is a generalization, that is only true in some circumstances. It really depends on what software you are running.
Reputation Points: 36
Solved Threads: 0
Light Poster
Passmark is offline Offline
32 posts
since Jan 2008

This thread is more than three months old

No one has posted to this discussion for at least three months. Please let old threads die and do not reply to them unless you feel you have something new and valuable to contribute that absolutely must be added to make the discussion complete. Otherwise, please start a new thread in this forum instead.
Message:
Previous Thread in Motherboards, CPUs and RAM Forum Timeline: Dell Laptop Acting Funny
Next Thread in Motherboards, CPUs and RAM Forum Timeline: upgrading an old laptop





About Us | Contact Us | Advertise | Acceptable Use Policy
Forum Index | Build Custom RSS Feed


Follow us on Twitter


© 2011 DaniWeb® LLC