Home of the Squeezebox™ & Transporter® network music players.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,186

    OT: dual core processors

    Can someone explain the new dual core processors, and why a dual core at 2.1 ghz would be more than a regular processor at 3.0 ghz?

  2. #2
    Founder, Slim Devices seanadams's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,880
    Quote Originally Posted by Kyle View Post
    Can someone explain the new dual core processors, and why a dual core at 2.1 ghz would be more than a regular processor at 3.0 ghz?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_core

    Two cores are better than one if your software can use it. The gotcha is:

    In addition to operating system (OS) support, adjustments to existing software are required to maximize utilization of the computing resources provided by multi-core processors. Also, the ability of multi-core processors to increase application performance depends on the use of multiple threads within applications. For example, most current (2006) video games will run faster on a 3 GHz single-core processor than on a 2GHz dual-core processor (of the same core architecture), despite the dual-core theoretically having more processing power, because they are incapable of efficiently using more than one core at a time.

  3. #3
    Senior Member JJZolx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    11,469
    Quote Originally Posted by Kyle View Post
    Can someone explain the new dual core processors, and why a dual core at 2.1 ghz would be more than a regular processor at 3.0 ghz?
    More, as in faster?

    You can't really compare GHz clock speeds unless you're comparing CPUs with identical architectures. A (single core) CPU of 2.1GHz could easily be faster than one of 3.0 GHz if the architectures are different. For instance, a 2.1GHz AMD Opteron vs a 3.0GHz Intel P4.

    Comparing a dual core CPU to a single core, the dual core may be be faster when the computer is doing something that can be divided between the processors. Not a lot of applications themselves take advantage of this capability, but in many cases the operating system will have one CPU core executing the application, while other applications or operating system tasks are given to the other CPU.

    In some cases, though, a dual core will be slower than a single core of the same clock speed. This is when the application doesn't make use of both cores and when there are no operating system tasks going on. A lot of CPU bound games fit this profile.

    IMO, dual core is the way to go. On my Athlon X2 I can encode an album's worth of Flac files in a matter of seconds without noticing any slowdowns while I do something else. With my old single core machine, it would max out the CPU and render the machine unusable.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Berlin, DE
    Posts
    1,901
    Quote Originally Posted by JJZolx View Post
    More, as in faster?

    You can't really compare GHz clock speeds unless you're comparing CPUs with identical architectures. A (single core) CPU of 2.1GHz could easily be faster than one of 3.0 GHz if the architectures are different. For instance, a 2.1GHz AMD Opteron vs a 3.0GHz Intel P4.
    This also happens across models. A 1.4ghz P3 is faster than a 2.0Ghz P4 in most cases.

    IMO, dual core is the way to go. On my Athlon X2 I can encode an album's worth of Flac files in a matter of seconds without noticing any slowdowns while I do something else. With my old single core machine, it would max out the CPU and render the machine unusable.
    Slimserver is also going to take advantage of this, the webserver/perl thread is going to run on one core, and the mysql server can run on the other core.

  5. #5
    Senior Member radish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Red Bank, NJ
    Posts
    5,052
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperQ View Post
    Slimserver is also going to take advantage of this, the webserver/perl thread is going to run on one core, and the mysql server can run on the other core.
    Going to? They're already seperate processes and so are already able to be scheduled across multiple cores or cpus. The real advantage will come (IMHO) when the stream serving and web serving are on different threads, reducing the likleyhood of stutters when hitting the UI.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Berlin, DE
    Posts
    1,901
    Quote Originally Posted by radish View Post
    Going to?
    Poorly selected english.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    7,099
    The most processor-intensive thing I do is audio encoding. The new Intel Core Duos seem particularly good at this...take a look here:

    http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.ht...=464&chart=178

    ...the E6600 and E6700 would be awesome for this. I'm currently using an Intel P4C "Northwood" 2.8 GHz chip, it's so old it's not on this chart. There are faster processors than mine but if you look at charts like this you'll note there isn't huge leaps forward, just steady incremental improvements.

    However the results for the E6600 and E6700 are HUGE improvements over their next-nearest competition.

    At the time, my P4C cost the same as the E6600 now does...hmm. I can't say that I'm lacking for CPU power though. Encoding is fast enough and I wouldn't spend $1000 just to get it faster - even much faster. It's not like it takes 40 minutes or anything.

  8. #8
    Senior Member radish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Red Bank, NJ
    Posts
    5,052
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperQ View Post
    Poorly selected english.
    No problem...I apologise if I sounded a little gruff

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Land'o'Treehuggers
    Posts
    286
    Take a look at the tomshardware link above for starters. Intel's 'new' Core2Duo for the desktop is an awesome processor choice paired with the right motherboard. The 2.13Ghz you saw is an E6400 and due to the design of the CPU is outperforms processors well over 3Ghz. So, it's not so much that you are getting "dual processors" as it is you are getting radically new technology for the desktop that vastly outperforms existing components. AMD touted for a while that "it's not about the clock speed" and it bit Intel in the butt until now.

  10. #10
    Babelfish's Best Boy mherger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    19,779

    Re: OT: dual core processors

    > The 2.13Ghz you saw is an E6400 and due to the design
    > of the CPU is outperforms processors well over 3Ghz.


    But slimserver still won't run faster on a dual core (or multi CPU) system
    of the same architecture as it is single threaded.

    --

    Michael

    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.herger.net/SlimCD - your SlimServer on a CD
    http://www.herger.net/slim - AlbumReview, Biography, MusicInfoSCR


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •