Performance boost of dual-core

[Amaroque]

As was said already, the fluidness, or smoothness is very apparent.

I actually dislike working on single cored computers now (kind of like using a computer w/o a wheel mouse). You don't need dual core to use the computer, but it's sure nice.

 

[jackwhitter]

Originally posted by: grrl

Originally posted by: jackwhitter
as to most programs not being able to use dual processor that is true, except, any current operating system can send individual threads to any available processor meaning that 2 programs running concurrently can each have their own processor even if they think that processor is the only one in the system. multitasking is the dual processor's power.

Is Win2K that good at threading?

grrl, windows 2000 was designed for multiprocessor systems, so yes, the OS is good at multithreading. win 2k was built from windows NT, which was originally a server operating system (servers have used mutiple cpus for a loooong time). windows 2000 can not do hyperthreading, but that is an intel design for the netburst cpu architecture, which is being phased out and replaced by core duo/duo 2. hyperthreading is no longer used by intel's new processors.

 

[Markbnj]

Ordinary tasks like browsing/email isn't going to be perceptibly faster. But with the prices expected to crash, I'd still recommend an X2 because PS/raw conversion should be alot faster.

Yeah that's largely because such programs spend 99.9% of their time idling in a loop waiting for the user to do something.

 

[Jeff7181]

I have a dual core laptop now and I know I'm not using it to it's potential and may never use it to it's full potential. I suspect I'll have to upgrade to 2 GB of RAM before I need more processing power. However, it is nice to have that power available if I ever decide to play around with a CAD program while I'm in school. It'll be nice for running virtual machines when I get into that aspect networking and use different operating systems. Won't need to bother repartitioning or using a different bootloader and all that stuff. Just load up a VM and go to work.

*EDIT* Actually I have seen the benefits of dual core already... I was installing Microsoft Office and had the task manager open to watch CPU usage and I noticed McAfee started to update. At one point, both cores were over 75%. If it had been a single core CPU I would have either needed a processor roughly 50% faster than a 1.83 GHz Pentium M, or the Office installation and/or McAfee update would have slowed down.

 

[rogue1979]

Originally posted by: Duvie
Pretty much most people around here are ignorant to the advantages of dual cores period...I have shown its increase goes from dvdshrink, video encoding, photo processing, video editing (all which even the average joes do now with home camcorders and digital cameras and what not)...I show huge increases in most CAD programs...There are huge advantages in doing distributed computing...These are things that may not be the mom and pops but for technologically aware ppl like thopse of us that hang here should be able to take advantage of...

The bottom line is to many of you ppl build $1000+ system to play games...and that is just sad...Buy a frekkin Xbox 360 for 400 dollars and use a PC for more productive things....That is my 2 cents....

The advantages are there for far more then just multitasking...I run many apps that use 2-3 ad even 4 cores effectively...

If I was a narrow minded 16-18 year old gamer like most of you I guess I would find dual core a waste!!!!!

I don't get it......

You said most people around here are ignorant to the advantages of dual core, but then you say the average Joe does a lot of stuff that you have proven that is faster on dual core?

First of all thank god you did those tests, or we would all be ignorant.

But then more contradiction, you go on to say people that hang out here are technologically aware?

Well which is it, are they ignorant around here or technologically aware? What are you trying to say?

By the way, I don't like Xbox, main reason is low resolution on a TV screen. And I sure as hell didn't spend $1000 on a gaming machine. Sempron 2800+ @2.4GHz, 7600GS, cool quiet and less than $500. Plays all my games just fine at the resolutions that I like.

If I had a job which required heavy cad or video editing, I might build a dual core.

But before I spend a large chunk of change on a quad core machine, I would probably save money and build two dual core machines (maybe even a Pentium D 805) and use one for work and one for gaming.

I found out a long time ago, that keeping on the bleeding edge of computing is too expensive for the short time that it remains effectively the best. I just build what I need, and when it gets too slow I simply build another one that is faster, but not the fastest.

Yes, back in the day I was one of the first people to run a 1GHz thunderbird at 1.5GHz and a Geforce Ultra. Wow, I was a bad dude and it gave me the mentality to post in forums like I was a know it all and continually look like an ass.

NOT!!!!

It is really sad, even in your most mundane posts you are always talking down and usually negative.

I feel sorry for you, because your johnson must really be small. That's the only explanation there can be for someone that doesn't have a life and overcompensates to the max on this forum.

I bet you don't act like that at the grocery store where you actually have to stand in front of people face to face......

Now on to more important stuff like addressing the original post.

If all I was going to do was some heavy photoshop, I would give the Pentium D 805 a whirl. Use a good quality air cooler and power supply, and I would think 3.5GHz minimum is possible probably at stock voltage running reasonably cool. Use the money saved to put in a crap load of memory and make sure you have some good quality fast hard drives.

 

[Markbnj]

*EDIT* Actually I have seen the benefits of dual core already... I was installing Microsoft Office and had the task manager open to watch CPU usage and I noticed McAfee started to update. At one point, both cores were over 75%. If it had been a single core CPU I would have either needed a processor roughly 50% faster than a 1.83 GHz Pentium M, or the Office installation and/or McAfee update would have slowed down.

Exactly. If you aren't doing really processor intensive tasks, then what you are paying for with a dual core is reserve processing power to smooth out the peaks. Kind of like the U.S. having a bunch of generating capacity that sits idle until the A/C units kick on in the summer. It's costly, and it's either worth it to you or it isn't. For me it is.