A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » System Manufacturers & Vendors » Dell Computers
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

'True' vs. 'Pseudo' Quad Core



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old October 11th 08, 02:14 PM posted to alt.sys.pc-clone.dell
Amiga
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17
Default 'True' vs. 'Pseudo' Quad Core

Hey!

It's only benchmarks but ya might wanna check out this article on toms
hardware.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/d...hmarks,31.html


Bill
  #12  
Old October 11th 08, 04:16 PM posted to alt.sys.pc-clone.dell
Ben Myers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,432
Default 'True' vs. 'Pseudo' Quad Core

FWIW, the Intel Atom 330 CPU is dual-core with hyperthreading, so Windows has 4
threads going. At 1.6GHz per core, the Atom 330 is a mighty mite. (Not paid
for by Intel, who certainly would approve of this message)... Ben Myers

On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 14:14:05 +1030, "Fred" wrote:


"Daddy" wrote in message
...
See below.

William R. Walsh wrote:
Hi!

What really is the difference, if anything, between the current
generation of Intel quad core processors and a 'true' quad core?

I think it can be summed up pretty easily. A true quad core processor
would have four fully independent cores. Each one would contain
everything needed to perform as a single CPU.

You could think of a system with four single processors installed.
Each processor there can function on its own.

In reality, I *think* that some components (like the cache) are shared
between cores.

Are today's Intel quad-cores a legitimate choice, or are they a
'gimmick', like hyperthreading, something to satisfy the market's
demand while they work on the 'real deal'?

Hyperthreading is not a gimmick per se...but it's not what it would
appear to be from the outside world. A hyperthreaded processor tries
to make use of functions in the CPU that would be idle while it is
doing something else. It "looks" like a second processor is available,
but that is not the case.

The multi-core processors actually do have more than one CPU inside,
but some things--possibly the cache--are shared between the CPUs.
Software that can make use of multiple processors should also see a
benefit from processors with multiple cores, since each one can be
assigned to a different task.

William


Just about any currently available processor will blow smoke rings on my
P4, Stew. That's not what I'm getting at.

By the word 'gimmick' I meant no disrespect. For example, hyperthreading
was 'sort of' like a dual core processor, but once real dual core
processors arrived nobody talked about hyperthreading any more, and
perhaps people who spent the extra money on a hyperthreaded processor
wished they would have waited a little longer for the 'genuine article' to
arrive.


FYI hyper-threading technology was dropped for the existing core 2 range of
processors but has returned with the upcoming core i7 processors.
Nehalem will be four core processors implementing hyper-threading, so will
be capable of simutaneously handling 8 threads. Handy for those users
heavily into multi-tasking.
Of course to take advantage of the newer processors a new motherboard and
RAM will be required.
Perhaps software vendors will write programs in the future that can take
advantage of all those threads.

"Intel Core i7 is a family of three Intel Desktop x86-64 processors. Core i7
is the first Intel family to be released using the Intel Nehalem
microarchitecture and is the successor to the Intel Core 2 family"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_3


It's that situation I'm hoping to avoid. If I am going to justify spending
the extra bucks, I don't want 'sort of' a quad core processor if the real
thing is coming down the road. Instead, I'll buy a dual core now and make
my /next/ computer a 'real' quad core.

Am I just being silly?


Horses for courses. If you are into games a faster dual core processor
usually beats a slower quad core.
Some worstation type programs (video rendering, photoshop, etc) benefit from
quad core.


  #13  
Old October 11th 08, 04:44 PM posted to alt.sys.pc-clone.dell
Ben Myers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,432
Default 'True' vs. 'Pseudo' Quad Core

There is a serious amount of discussion in the software developer trade rags
about programming for multi-core systems. Intel, of course, is leading the way
by making multi-core software development tools available, most notably C
compilers and supporting stuff.

Bottom line is that today, October 11, 2008, an application that makes true use
of mulitple cores and threads is probably very rare. However, that does not
invalidate the multi-core approach to provide more computing power with a
smaller electrical power budget. After all, Windows, Linux, and BSD Unix (for
the Mac OS X crowd) all run multiple threads and concurrent applications which
can be dispatched to idle or low use CPUs.

What I have not seen in all the multi-core discussion are the effects of memory
bus and memory bandwidth on making effective use of all them cores. Way back
when I worked with Honeywell's monster multicore mastodon mainframes, CPU
utilization percentages dropped off with each added processor. Honeywell had a
standard quad processor offering, and GE San Jose asked for and got special 5-
and 6-processor systems for their nuclear power plant computations. Of course,
back then in the '70's, a CPU took up an entire cabinet the size of a commercial
refrigerator (which is how they looked). Possibly circuit paths a couple of
inches long have reduced contention for memory access by multi-core CPUs. I
would still like to see someone's heavily instrumented analysis, but I suspect
that Intel keeps that info closely under wraps. Same with AMD... Ben Myers

On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 23:02:09 -0500, "S.Lewis" wrote:

SNIP

As you're configuring the system, just get the most capable CPU you can get
within your sense of value. You'll notice the price premium differences
when putting the system together.

It's not as if there is a huge wealth of applications coded to fully utilize
multi-core processors (someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't
think so).

Additionally, I know of no (mainstream) software written to take advantage
of hyperthreading.

So, no. You're not being silly imo.


Stew

  #14  
Old October 11th 08, 05:21 PM posted to alt.sys.pc-clone.dell
RnR[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,394
Default 'True' vs. 'Pseudo' Quad Core

On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 11:44:55 -0400, Ben Myers
wrote:

Bottom line is that today, October 11, 2008, an application that makes true use
of mulitple cores and threads is probably very rare.


Yep, I read the same thing months ago so I don't recommend quad cores
to most. The performance boost isn't worth it from what I read but
some people just want to believe and it's their money so who am I
to tell them how to spend their money unless they ask me.
  #15  
Old October 11th 08, 06:15 PM posted to alt.sys.pc-clone.dell
Daddy[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 367
Default 'True' vs. 'Pseudo' Quad Core

So far the only applications I have come across that 'recommend' quad
core is video editing software, and then only for editing hi-definition
video. There is probably other software that can take advantage of four
cores but my sense is that there's not a lot of it. Not now, at least.

So for now, it seems to me, unless someone knows they would benefit from
quad core, the main reason for buying a quad from Dell is if it's part
of a package deal at an attractive price (what Stew was referring to,
and me with my bang-for-the-buck-o-meter.)

Daddy

RnR wrote:
On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 11:44:55 -0400, Ben Myers
wrote:

Bottom line is that today, October 11, 2008, an application that makes true use
of mulitple cores and threads is probably very rare.


Yep, I read the same thing months ago so I don't recommend quad cores
to most. The performance boost isn't worth it from what I read but
some people just want to believe and it's their money so who am I
to tell them how to spend their money unless they ask me.

  #16  
Old October 11th 08, 07:34 PM posted to alt.sys.pc-clone.dell
Bill Ghrist[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15
Default 'True' vs. 'Pseudo' Quad Core

Daddy wrote:
So far the only applications I have come across that 'recommend' quad
core is video editing software, and then only for editing hi-definition
video. There is probably other software that can take advantage of four
cores but my sense is that there's not a lot of it. Not now, at least.

So for now, it seems to me, unless someone knows they would benefit from
quad core, the main reason for buying a quad from Dell is if it's part
of a package deal at an attractive price (what Stew was referring to,
and me with my bang-for-the-buck-o-meter.)

Daddy

RnR wrote:
On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 11:44:55 -0400, Ben Myers
wrote:

Bottom line is that today, October 11, 2008, an application that
makes true use
of mulitple cores and threads is probably very rare.


Yep, I read the same thing months ago so I don't recommend quad cores
to most. The performance boost isn't worth it from what I read but
some people just want to believe and it's their money so who am I
to tell them how to spend their money unless they ask me.



I got a Precision T3400 recently with the Q6600. I was originally
looking at a dual core, but the Dell "deal" on the configuration with
the quad core was so much better that I couldn't pass it up. One of the
things that surprised me: I brought up Task Manager while I was running
an AVG virus scan and saw that all four cores were nearly maxed out
(with no applications other than AVG and Task Manager running). After
the fact I found that Grisoft does document that AVG will use multi-core
processing as available, but I was impressed--especially since this is
free software.
  #17  
Old October 11th 08, 08:56 PM posted to alt.sys.pc-clone.dell
RnR[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,394
Default 'True' vs. 'Pseudo' Quad Core

On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 13:15:01 -0400, Daddy
wrote:

So far the only applications I have come across that 'recommend' quad
core is video editing software, and then only for editing hi-definition
video. There is probably other software that can take advantage of four
cores but my sense is that there's not a lot of it. Not now, at least.

So for now, it seems to me, unless someone knows they would benefit from
quad core, the main reason for buying a quad from Dell is if it's part
of a package deal at an attractive price (what Stew was referring to,
and me with my bang-for-the-buck-o-meter.)

Daddy

RnR wrote:
On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 11:44:55 -0400, Ben Myers
wrote:

Bottom line is that today, October 11, 2008, an application that makes true use
of mulitple cores and threads is probably very rare.


Yep, I read the same thing months ago so I don't recommend quad cores
to most. The performance boost isn't worth it from what I read but
some people just want to believe and it's their money so who am I
to tell them how to spend their money unless they ask me.



I understand if the bang for the buck is quad core I don't blame
you.
  #18  
Old October 11th 08, 08:56 PM posted to alt.sys.pc-clone.dell
RnR[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,394
Default 'True' vs. 'Pseudo' Quad Core

On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 14:34:07 -0400, Bill Ghrist
wrote:

Daddy wrote:
So far the only applications I have come across that 'recommend' quad
core is video editing software, and then only for editing hi-definition
video. There is probably other software that can take advantage of four
cores but my sense is that there's not a lot of it. Not now, at least.

So for now, it seems to me, unless someone knows they would benefit from
quad core, the main reason for buying a quad from Dell is if it's part
of a package deal at an attractive price (what Stew was referring to,
and me with my bang-for-the-buck-o-meter.)

Daddy

RnR wrote:
On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 11:44:55 -0400, Ben Myers
wrote:

Bottom line is that today, October 11, 2008, an application that
makes true use
of mulitple cores and threads is probably very rare.

Yep, I read the same thing months ago so I don't recommend quad cores
to most. The performance boost isn't worth it from what I read but
some people just want to believe and it's their money so who am I
to tell them how to spend their money unless they ask me.



I got a Precision T3400 recently with the Q6600. I was originally
looking at a dual core, but the Dell "deal" on the configuration with
the quad core was so much better that I couldn't pass it up. One of the
things that surprised me: I brought up Task Manager while I was running
an AVG virus scan and saw that all four cores were nearly maxed out
(with no applications other than AVG and Task Manager running). After
the fact I found that Grisoft does document that AVG will use multi-core
processing as available, but I was impressed--especially since this is
free software.



I understand if the bang for the buck is quad core I don't blame
you.
  #19  
Old October 11th 08, 10:36 PM posted to alt.sys.pc-clone.dell
Scott Davis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 61
Default 'True' vs. 'Pseudo' Quad Core

On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 14:34:07 -0400, Bill Ghrist
wrote:

Daddy wrote:
So far the only applications I have come across that 'recommend' quad
core is video editing software, and then only for editing hi-definition
video. There is probably other software that can take advantage of four
cores but my sense is that there's not a lot of it. Not now, at least.

So for now, it seems to me, unless someone knows they would benefit from
quad core, the main reason for buying a quad from Dell is if it's part
of a package deal at an attractive price (what Stew was referring to,
and me with my bang-for-the-buck-o-meter.)

Daddy

RnR wrote:
On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 11:44:55 -0400, Ben Myers
wrote:

Bottom line is that today, October 11, 2008, an application that
makes true use
of mulitple cores and threads is probably very rare.

Yep, I read the same thing months ago so I don't recommend quad cores
to most. The performance boost isn't worth it from what I read but
some people just want to believe and it's their money so who am I
to tell them how to spend their money unless they ask me.



I got a Precision T3400 recently with the Q6600. I was originally
looking at a dual core, but the Dell "deal" on the configuration with
the quad core was so much better that I couldn't pass it up. One of the
things that surprised me: I brought up Task Manager while I was running
an AVG virus scan and saw that all four cores were nearly maxed out
(with no applications other than AVG and Task Manager running). After
the fact I found that Grisoft does document that AVG will use multi-core
processing as available, but I was impressed--especially since this is
free software.


Did it make a noticeable difference?
  #20  
Old October 12th 08, 02:10 AM posted to alt.sys.pc-clone.dell
Tony Harding[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default 'True' vs. 'Pseudo' Quad Core

Daddy wrote:
Trying to decide between dual core and quad core for my next Dell desktop.

From what I understand, Intel's current quad-core processors (at least,
the ones offered by Dell) are not truly quad core, but more like two
dual-core processors glued together. There are four cores there, no
doubt, but certain components are shared between the two halves.
Obviously, I'm missing a lot of information.

What really is the difference, if anything, between the current
generation of Intel quad core processors and a 'true' quad core? This
may be a huge question, so I'd be fine with links to more detailed
explanations.

Are today's Intel quad-cores a legitimate choice, or are they a
'gimmick', like hyperthreading, something to satisfy the market's demand
while they work on the 'real deal'?


I upgraded my XPS720 from a Core2 processor, E6600, to a quad, Q6600,
and saw an enormous real world increase in performance when editing &
rendering video. Other stuff is instantaneous no matter which CPU.

FWIW, I don't consider hyperthreading a gimmick - it's a way of wringing
some extra performance from a single core processor and works the way
Intel describes (had one on my Dim8400).
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Should I go Dual Core or Quad Core? Intel C2 DUO E6850 vs. Quad-Core Q6600 Bob Fry Nvidia Videocards 17 January 9th 08 10:22 AM
Should I go Dual Core or Quad Core? Intel C2 DUO E6850 vs. Quad-Core Q6600 Bob Fry Ati Videocards 17 January 9th 08 10:22 AM
Should I go Dual Core or Quad Core? Intel C2 DUO E6850 vs. Quad-Core Q6600 Fred Ati Videocards 6 January 8th 08 01:41 PM
Should I go Dual Core or Quad Core? Intel C2 DUO E6850 vs. Quad-Core Q6600 Patrick Vervoorn Nvidia Videocards 1 January 3rd 08 10:10 PM
Should I go Dual Core or Quad Core? Intel C2 DUO E6850 vs. Quad-Core Q6600 John Weiss[_2_] Ati Videocards 0 January 3rd 08 09:54 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.