If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Compare 2 computers vs. Dual Core
I find many times, since I have 2 computers, that I will let one do some
extended work, like video editing or downloading a large file, while I use the other one for other things. Would I be able to do just about the same thing if I used a dual core processor? Can the tasks be separated sufficiently to make it seem like there are 2 computers? If it does work like 2 computers, do you recommend having twice the memory you would normally have in one computer? Anything else needed to make the 2 cores function as 2 separate computers? Thanks, Clark |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Compare 2 computers vs. Dual Core
Clark wrote:
I find many times, since I have 2 computers, that I will let one do some extended work, like video editing or downloading a large file, while I use the other one for other things. Would I be able to do just about the same thing if I used a dual core processor? Can the tasks be separated sufficiently to make it seem like there are 2 computers? If it does work like 2 computers, do you recommend having twice the memory you would normally have in one computer? Anything else needed to make the 2 cores function as 2 separate computers? You'll need more memory; since windows takes up about 200MB (very roughly) it won't quite be twice as much, although twice as much would be a good idea. In theory, you'll also need twice the memory bandwidth, which may be harder to get, although if your older computers are old enough it may not (if they're Athlon XP, A64 w/ Socket 754, or Intels before dual-channel 800mhz bus came in, you may actually have no problem getting it.) Second, you'll need more than one hard drive, at least for the video part - you may already have that. Editing video on the C:\ drive will slow everything down badly, since it tends to use a lot of disk bandwidth. A second hard drive (physical drive, not just a partition) will keep the first free for the OS and whatever else you're doing. Third, I highly recommend a "virtual desktop" program; I think some Nvidia drivers come with them, and if not there are some freeware ones. This lets you switch programs between two (or more) different virtual screens, rather than having to futz with minimizing them, etc. Lastly, for some applications if they are smart enough to use both cores/processors, if the goal is instead to make sure the system remains useable while running them in the background, you can usually set their affinity to only one core or the other through task manager. To do this, right click on the process and click "Set Affinity..." then uncheck the box next to one of the two CPUs. -- Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/ "What's the use of yearning for Elysian Fields when you know you can't get 'em, and would only let 'em out on building leases if you had 'em?" (WSG) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Compare 2 computers vs. Dual Core
Some good information, thanks.
I was wondering what Adobe Premiere would do with a dual core, but you answered that question, and the other thing I was worried about was burning to DVD while something else is going on. That is not recommended on a one processor system, but if you can set the programs to use just one core, I suppose that would allow for such use, especially if you had a dedicated Hard Drive. I may have to consider how to set up the hard drives/DVD burner as far as SATA or IDE to keep them from being interrupted. Thanks Again, Clark "Nate Edel" wrote in message ... Clark wrote: I find many times, since I have 2 computers, that I will let one do some extended work, like video editing or downloading a large file, while I use the other one for other things. Would I be able to do just about the same thing if I used a dual core processor? Can the tasks be separated sufficiently to make it seem like there are 2 computers? If it does work like 2 computers, do you recommend having twice the memory you would normally have in one computer? Anything else needed to make the 2 cores function as 2 separate computers? You'll need more memory; since windows takes up about 200MB (very roughly) it won't quite be twice as much, although twice as much would be a good idea. In theory, you'll also need twice the memory bandwidth, which may be harder to get, although if your older computers are old enough it may not (if they're Athlon XP, A64 w/ Socket 754, or Intels before dual-channel 800mhz bus came in, you may actually have no problem getting it.) Second, you'll need more than one hard drive, at least for the video part - you may already have that. Editing video on the C:\ drive will slow everything down badly, since it tends to use a lot of disk bandwidth. A second hard drive (physical drive, not just a partition) will keep the first free for the OS and whatever else you're doing. Third, I highly recommend a "virtual desktop" program; I think some Nvidia drivers come with them, and if not there are some freeware ones. This lets you switch programs between two (or more) different virtual screens, rather than having to futz with minimizing them, etc. Lastly, for some applications if they are smart enough to use both cores/processors, if the goal is instead to make sure the system remains useable while running them in the background, you can usually set their affinity to only one core or the other through task manager. To do this, right click on the process and click "Set Affinity..." then uncheck the box next to one of the two CPUs. -- Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/ "What's the use of yearning for Elysian Fields when you know you can't get 'em, and would only let 'em out on building leases if you had 'em?" (WSG) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Compare 2 computers vs. Dual Core
Clark wrote:
I was wondering what Adobe Premiere would do with a dual core, I don't know if Premiere's core will use dual core, but I know that many of its filters will. answered that question, and the other thing I was worried about was burning to DVD while something else is going on. That is not recommended on a one processor system, but if you can set the programs to use just one core, I suppose that would allow for such use, especially if you had a dedicated Hard Drive. The dedicated hard drive is much more important (and a goodly size memory cache at the application level). I did that all the time on my home system, prior to the most recent upgrade, and burning an ISO image (using Nero or DVD Decrypter) from HD #2 or #3 was no problem at all. From ISOs, it's even possible to burn two at once and still use IE or other light applications, as long as the two source drives are separate. I may have to consider how to set up the hard drives/DVD burner as far as SATA or IDE to keep them from being interrupted. FWIW, my old setup was: HD1 - primary master (C:\ , K: (ISOS3)) HD2 - primary slave (later SATA) (D:\ (DATA), I:\ (ISOS1)) HD3 - SATA (E:\ (VIDEO), J:\ (ISOS2), L:\ (ISOS4)) DVD1 - (16x) secondary master DVD2 - (8x) 1394 external DVD3 - (rarely used) secondary slave DVD1 and 3 were flakey trying to burn simultaneously at full speed for DVD1, but could at 4x; DVD 1 + 2 could burn simultaneously at each their own full speed from any pair of HD. Occasionally got a few coasters when burning from J:\ and L:\ simultaneously because I forgot they were on the same drive; also, burning from K: tended to require not doing much of anything else on the system. On my new system (P-D 940) it's now HD1-3 all SATA, and the 16x and 8x drives both on the internal PATA channel. We'll see if they'll both burn at full speed at the same time. For burning DVD images from windows, one very handy thing is to create a partition on each drive for images - I usually do 20 or 25gb - and then format it with 64k blocks rather than the XP default. Then clear and reformat them frequently, to avoid fragmentation. -- Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/ "What's the use of yearning for Elysian Fields when you know you can't get 'em, and would only let 'em out on building leases if you had 'em?" (WSG) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Compare 2 computers vs. Dual Core
Thanks, good info. I don't intend being anywhere near as intensive as you,
but it looks like I should not have problems if I follow you suggestions. I was thinking of a P d 940 since the price drop. Clark "Nate Edel" wrote in message ... Clark wrote: I was wondering what Adobe Premiere would do with a dual core, I don't know if Premiere's core will use dual core, but I know that many of its filters will. answered that question, and the other thing I was worried about was burning to DVD while something else is going on. That is not recommended on a one processor system, but if you can set the programs to use just one core, I suppose that would allow for such use, especially if you had a dedicated Hard Drive. The dedicated hard drive is much more important (and a goodly size memory cache at the application level). I did that all the time on my home system, prior to the most recent upgrade, and burning an ISO image (using Nero or DVD Decrypter) from HD #2 or #3 was no problem at all. From ISOs, it's even possible to burn two at once and still use IE or other light applications, as long as the two source drives are separate. I may have to consider how to set up the hard drives/DVD burner as far as SATA or IDE to keep them from being interrupted. FWIW, my old setup was: HD1 - primary master (C:\ , K: (ISOS3)) HD2 - primary slave (later SATA) (D:\ (DATA), I:\ (ISOS1)) HD3 - SATA (E:\ (VIDEO), J:\ (ISOS2), L:\ (ISOS4)) DVD1 - (16x) secondary master DVD2 - (8x) 1394 external DVD3 - (rarely used) secondary slave DVD1 and 3 were flakey trying to burn simultaneously at full speed for DVD1, but could at 4x; DVD 1 + 2 could burn simultaneously at each their own full speed from any pair of HD. Occasionally got a few coasters when burning from J:\ and L:\ simultaneously because I forgot they were on the same drive; also, burning from K: tended to require not doing much of anything else on the system. On my new system (P-D 940) it's now HD1-3 all SATA, and the 16x and 8x drives both on the internal PATA channel. We'll see if they'll both burn at full speed at the same time. For burning DVD images from windows, one very handy thing is to create a partition on each drive for images - I usually do 20 or 25gb - and then format it with 64k blocks rather than the XP default. Then clear and reformat them frequently, to avoid fragmentation. -- Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/ "What's the use of yearning for Elysian Fields when you know you can't get 'em, and would only let 'em out on building leases if you had 'em?" (WSG) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Laptops, wait for Intel Centrino Core Duo? | Kevin K. Fosler | Dell Computers | 35 | February 15th 06 01:48 AM |
Dual core hotfix | Mike | Asus Motherboards | 3 | January 25th 06 09:01 AM |
AMD or Intel : Dual core | Brian | Intel | 9 | July 29th 05 05:19 PM |
for those wondering about dual core bios | dead kitty | AMD x86-64 Processors | 3 | July 27th 05 06:11 PM |
P5WD2 + 3.2 ghz 840 dual core, second core only runs at 2.8 ghz nomatter the load | doug | Asus Motherboards | 2 | June 26th 05 06:07 PM |