PDA

View Full Version : OT: dual core processors



Kyle
2006-12-12, 11:58
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?

seanadams
2006-12-12, 12:08
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.

JJZolx
2006-12-12, 12:14
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.

SuperQ
2006-12-12, 12:39
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.

radish
2006-12-12, 14:39
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.

SuperQ
2006-12-12, 14:55
Going to?

Poorly selected english. :(

Mark Lanctot
2006-12-12, 16:32
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.html?modelx=33&model1=430&model2=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.

radish
2006-12-13, 07:43
Poorly selected english. :(

No problem...I apologise if I sounded a little gruff :)

notanatheist
2006-12-13, 20:38
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.

mherger
2006-12-14, 01:18
> 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

Robin Bowes
2006-12-14, 02:14
Michael Herger wrote:
>> 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.


slimserver won't in itself but, with multiple cores or CPUs, MySQL can
run on different processor.


R.

radish
2006-12-14, 09:28
But slimserver still won't run faster on a dual core (or multi CPU) system
of the same architecture as it is single threaded.

True for the core slimserver itself, but there are other processes running (the scanner, mysql, codecs for transcoding, etc) and with multiple cores those won't be competing for the same resources as slimserver itself.

MrStan
2006-12-15, 07:28
With versions 6.5 onwards the MySql Server is probably running under a seperate thread.

Also the Core Duo processors have actually had some processor tweaks which will make a difference. Many of the processor instructions take less machine cycles which probably has a lot to do with why this processor runs faster than an equivalent Pentium.

Skunk
2006-12-15, 08:18
FYI, Fry's Electronics has great deals on the C2D's. I got an E6300 Conroe bare chip and motherboard for $149, which is $30 less than the oem chip even at newegg.

CFP
2006-12-15, 09:44
My custom build has an Intel E6700 OC'd to 3.33ghz and it's amazing.