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
|
|||
|
|||
my 1st quadcore
Intel 8200/2.33Ghz x 4 cores, found on Ebay for $25, I used to replace
an Intel 3Ghz dualcore;- Same family of technological production means, btw. Surprised ** XP ** picked it up -- (shows as a Xeon in a dated Everest HW Diag.), evidently will use it, too - "the OS _can_ [XP -fl] assign other tasks to idle cores." First quote I noticed on Tom's HW. Seems, perhaps, that the name of the game, then, is efficiency - e.g., W7 is therefore more efficiently designed to, hm, about "handling threads"] with a greater preponderance of single-core coded programs still run on computers;- Caveats, exclusions and limitations to XP I'd think well might as well apply. Whatever the chainmail of an eating order is to XP, vrs NT/Vista/W7 when mightily gobbling up cores in a whoosh. Sounds somewhat a difficult, no doubt a more complicated proposal, I had imagined, to update this MB (and its quad) into a entertainment system for more intensive sound processing apps I'm running, (than most anything I can demand here at this station);- the ESys, as it is, believe is a 2.2Ghz under AMD's typical moniker for listing it - a X2 4000 (dual core ostensibly "Intel-equal" to 4Ghz/3Ghz or some such AMD marketing crap). Dunno squat, though. Other than it's a monkey-barrel of a load of work to swap these two systems out, one for the other. At a residual, as I suspect, perhaps considerably lower in units of computing processing power. Negligible, IOW, at what I might propose, say, to bring all of Oxygen6's streaming sound-processing modules into play -- for still getting gaps and pauses in playback, whilst I throttle its neck and choke this I8200 to death. Murphy's optimism, as it were, in case I'm totally wrong. As it is, the ES/sound system is optimized, and well, for my having A-B'd most of Oxygen6's modules, additionally, to a couple of select and notably independent VST plugins. I've narrowed in to where, even if I had the most powerful I7, 'in the world, punk' - more, such as additional harmonics and other cake-icing from Oxygen6 isn't necessarily going to improve inherently top-notch pro-studio session mixes. That brick wall, a decade ago, technology hit when it was universally acclaimed that electrons will move only so fast through a pipeline conduit, I think, has possibly just hit me. I feel, somehow, splatted. Too bad I haven't anything more useful to run, really, in this residual void of a quad-environ, unlike all the rest, the other 50% of home PC users that predominately game with them. Blam. Oh, well, I guess it can be said that I'm replete, a tad spicier now with a quad. - 'My dad liked his food like his women.' -Lenny Bruce's daughter. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
my 1st quadcore
On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 10:49:44 -0500, Flasherly
wrote: I feel, somehow, splatted. Too bad I haven't anything more useful to run, really, in this residual void of a quad-environ, unlike all the rest, Disregard all the above - just ran a normalization program over a ton of sound encodes and it hit twice the performance matrix readouts I was getting, reported by Process Lasso for red-tagging CPU utilization over all quadcores. Sweet. It just got more interesting. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
my 1st quadcore
Flasherly wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 10:49:44 -0500, Flasherly wrote: I feel, somehow, splatted. Too bad I haven't anything more useful to run, really, in this residual void of a quad-environ, unlike all the rest, Disregard all the above - just ran a normalization program over a ton of sound encodes and it hit twice the performance matrix readouts I was getting, reported by Process Lasso for red-tagging CPU utilization over all quadcores. Sweet. It just got more interesting. Regarding your quad co 1) Win98 will run on one core only. 2) Win2K will report two cores and ignore the other two. The Win2K desktop license, is based on cores, and you only get two. It was designed for an era of desktop motherboards with two processor slots (two AthlonMP single core or two Xeon single core). 3) WinXP Home supports one socket. WinXP Pro supports two sockets. The sockets can have as many cores as you can find. This means either version of WinXP will report all four cores of your processor, since only one CPU socket is involved. WinXP marks a change from core licensing to socket licensing. WinXP schedules task just as well as any later OS. Many promises were made in the later OSes, but it's hard to see their effects. For example, your quad core 8200 is actually two dual core processors sharing an FSB. http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Core_2...580Q8200).html "(2) 2MB 8-way set associative caches (each L2 cache is shared between 2 cores) Later OSes may be NUMA aware, or aware of core organization. If a process is running on Core1, it can migrate to Core2, then back to Core1, at zero cost. That's because those cores share an L2, and no cache flushing is caused by moving to another core. If Core1 and Core2 happened to be fully utilized, an OS later than WinXP will still move the process to Core3 or Core4, but be aware there is a cost associated with doing so. WinXP is more or less oblivious to the cost (a little bit of cache coherency traffic after the move). But this fine tuning is more or less noise in the bigger picture. WinXP is still "sufficient" as an OS. You can even run that $4000 processor with 18 cores if you want, because the license is by socket and not by cores. Windows 8/8.1 is a little less generous, because it "reserves" some cycles. This can be seen as a frame rate reduction, running the same game on a WinXP/Win8 dual boot computer. One where the game was barely smooth on WinXP, will stutter a bit on Win8. The trick to beating the reservation system (for programs with infinite scaleup), is to fork more threads. For example, 7ZIP on Win8 will run slightly faster if you fork twice as many threads as there are virtual or physical cores. If you have a quad core, and play a game that was smooth as butter on a single core, then you will not notice the reservation issue. Paul |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
my 1st quadcore
On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 16:43:42 -0500, Paul wrote:
Regarding your quad co 1) Win98 will run on one core only. 2) Win2K will report two cores and ignore the other two. The Win2K desktop license, is based on cores, and you only get two. It was designed for an era of desktop motherboards with two processor slots (two AthlonMP single core or two Xeon single core). 3) WinXP Home supports one socket. WinXP Pro supports two sockets. The sockets can have as many cores as you can find. This means either version of WinXP will report all four cores of your processor, since only one CPU socket is involved. WinXP marks a change from core licensing to socket licensing. WinXP schedules task just as well as any later OS. Many promises were made in the later OSes, but it's hard to see their effects. For example, your quad core 8200 is actually two dual core processors sharing an FSB. http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Core_2...580Q8200).html "(2) 2MB 8-way set associative caches (each L2 cache is shared between 2 cores) Later OSes may be NUMA aware, or aware of core organization. If a process is running on Core1, it can migrate to Core2, then back to Core1, at zero cost. That's because those cores share an L2, and no cache flushing is caused by moving to another core. If Core1 and Core2 happened to be fully utilized, an OS later than WinXP will still move the process to Core3 or Core4, but be aware there is a cost associated with doing so. WinXP is more or less oblivious to the cost (a little bit of cache coherency traffic after the move). But this fine tuning is more or less noise in the bigger picture. WinXP is still "sufficient" as an OS. You can even run that $4000 processor with 18 cores if you want, because the license is by socket and not by cores. Windows 8/8.1 is a little less generous, because it "reserves" some cycles. This can be seen as a frame rate reduction, running the same game on a WinXP/Win8 dual boot computer. One where the game was barely smooth on WinXP, will stutter a bit on Win8. The trick to beating the reservation system (for programs with infinite scaleup), is to fork more threads. For example, 7ZIP on Win8 will run slightly faster if you fork twice as many threads as there are virtual or physical cores. If you have a quad core, and play a game that was smooth as butter on a single core, then you will not notice the reservation issue. Paul That's some excellent coverage to all bases, and no reason why there shouldn't be at least modest (very) gain improvements on sound processing for playback. Taltube/FerricTDS - "smooth dynamic shaping capabilities of some high-end reel-to-reel tape recorders, this plug-in simulates three of the most distinctive and much appreciated sonic effects generated by these devices: DYNAMICS, SATURATION, LIMITING performance" - (two VSR DLLs off Oxygen6's sound leveling/low bandpass filtering), for StereoTool's 9band compressor/limiter, AGC. StereoTool, as it is, 'coded, per se, multi-core aware,' can't be maxed without artifacts, even if it is already close enough (via a slider for allowing it utilize more CPU resources) to maxed, to be then nominally discernable. So, that's about as hard as I can hit it, the 8200, in any continued sense for efficiency. Haven't enough "tinsel," utilities I'm as yet aware of, to make it glitter any brighter than it is (I've a fair amount, probably half or more, of sound material at LossLess quality). Top-notch hardware, of course - preamps/processors, mixed amps and such over a 15-driver (quad-speaker/monitor) array. That's also a set-environ computer, not much else going on with it other than sound. Perhaps, at least for the time being, better off here (dual-XP/W7 boot machine), where it's better setup to try various apps for a testbed platform. Really -- came out well past expectations I had for XP/SP2, which I just didn't see overall as conducive to multi-core processing above duals. A false presumption I had held where W7 had all those eggs in its basket. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Quadcore??? | marin | General Hardware | 0 | January 10th 08 09:29 AM |
Quadcore | Parrôtt[_2_] | AMD x86-64 Processors | 4 | December 19th 07 04:26 AM |
Quadcore??? | Pitter | Acer Computers | 0 | October 3rd 07 03:05 PM |
AMD's new Quadcore processors | bourne | General | 0 | December 8th 06 10:37 AM |
AMD's new Quadcore processors | bourne | General | 0 | December 8th 06 10:26 AM |