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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
'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
|
|||
|
|||
'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
|
|||
|
|||
'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
|
|||
|
|||
'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
|
|||
|
|||
'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
|
|||
|
|||
'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
|
|||
|
|||
'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
|
|||
|
|||
'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
|
|||
|
|||
'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
|
|||
|
|||
'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 | |
|
|
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 09:22 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 09:22 AM |
Should I go Dual Core or Quad Core? Intel C2 DUO E6850 vs. Quad-Core Q6600 | Fred | Ati Videocards | 6 | January 8th 08 12:41 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 09:10 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 08:54 PM |