May be a silly question - Multi Core CPUs...

[AndyD2k]

If I have no apps that are designed to take advantage of multi-core cpus, will 1 core remain always idle? Or can I assign a app to a core and have the rest running on the other. Like have transcoding done on one without affecting performance of everything else

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: AndyD2k
If I have no apps that are designed to take advantage of multi-core cpus, will 1 core remain always idle? Or can I assign a app to a core and have the rest running on the other. Like have transcoding done on one without affecting performance of everything else

you can assign an app to run only on one core freeing up the other. Generally the OS does a decent job of spreading the load between each.

 

[tatteredpotato]

On XP SP2 you can set the "Affinity" of processes. This way if you are encoding something (usually a multi threaded applicatioin) you can have the encoder only run on however many core you like and leave the rest open. In a dual core system a single threaded app can't use more that 50% of the CPU (100% of one core).

So yes you can transcode on one core and have the other for web browsing, or whatever.

 

[AndyD2k]

Interesting - how would you assign an app to a core? Using Task Manager?

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: AndyD2k
Interesting - how would you assign an app to a core? Using Task Manager?

yes, select the process that you want to assign to a specific core, right click it and select affinity. then check only the one core you want it to use (or in the case of quad core maybe select the 2 or 3).

 

[alaricljs]

If you are running more than 1 process (just windows itself is 15+ processes) they get spread across the cores. The scheduler will handle putting the processes on the cores. Unix OS's are the only ones I know of with processor affinity where you can assign a processor/core to be only ever used by a particular process.

Edit: wow, lotta responses while I wrote, and I didn't know XP supported affinity

If you are running a transcode that is not multi-threaded then it's most likely going to get a processor/core all to itself, until the point at which the scheduler decides that the other processes that are running are too much for a single core, then the transcode loses some timeslices and shares the core.

 

[AndyD2k]

Thanks guys. Looks like Quad core is the way to go. I'm going to need read quite a bit before upgrading in June/July

 

[f4phantom2500]

Originally posted by: AndyD2k
Thanks guys. Looks like Quad core is the way to go.

how did you come to that conclusion?

 

[AndyD2k]

Originally posted by: f4phantom2500

Originally posted by: AndyD2k
Thanks guys. Looks like Quad core is the way to go.

how did you come to that conclusion?

I jumped to a conclusion there...Sorry I really dont know much about multi cores. Figured the more the better but obviously a silly assumption. I'm actually reading reviews on intel dual cores now

 

[aka1nas]

Dual-core is still a lot more cost-effective as there are relatively few apps out yet that can scale to 4+ compute-bound threads. Quad-core setups will be coming down later this year. though, and might make more sense for the average gamer/power-user at that time.

 

[Arkaign]

On a set budget of sane levels ($2000 or less), for most purposes, you are better off getting a decent dual-core, good mobo, plenty of memory, a great video card and monitor, etc, rather than spending the extra $300+ on the Quad-Core cpu now. With decent AM2 and S775 boards, Quad-core is an easy upgrade when price becomes more reasonable.

 

[AndyD2k]

Yeah, more than likely I will end up with the Intel E6700. Unless things drastically change in the next month or two

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: AndyD2k

Originally posted by: f4phantom2500

Originally posted by: AndyD2k
Thanks guys. Looks like Quad core is the way to go.

how did you come to that conclusion?

I jumped to a conclusion there...Sorry I really dont know much about multi cores. Figured the more the better but obviously a silly assumption. I'm actually reading reviews on intel dual cores now

Uhhhhhh u jumped too fast.

1. Quads are outragously too hot to handle.
2. There extremely difficult to overclock
3. most require exotic cooling like mine to get stable/acceptable load temps at 3.3+ ghz

Unless you really enjoy loading at 70's on a tuniq tower.


So i think you should re evaluate your choice there bud. And if your quading you picked a wrong month. August would be a much better date. And september if you really cant wait, because the g0 steppings are coming out then.


Also did i mention, you seem to not even use the full capacity of a dual core. You wont feel jack unless you play games, or you fold/WCG so why do you want a quadcore now?

 

[AndyD2k]

Did you read the entire sentence? Or even my last post? No doubt I was jumping to conclusions I will more than likely go with the Intel E6700

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: AndyD2k
Did you read the entire sentence? Or even my last post? No doubt I was jumping to conclusions I will more than likely go with the Intel E6700

u are aware 133FSB cpu's will be coming out soon.

And auguest is another pricedrop for cpu's

how does a E6850 for 249 sound?