QUestion about quad-core processors

[Arcadio]

Everyone seems to agree that quad-core processors are only good when you use applications that take advantage of them. However, aren't they excellent for people who run multiple single-threaded applications at the same time? multi-tasking? That would be a very good reason to get a quad-core.

 

[BlueAcolyte]

Yes, if the single-threaded apps use different cores.

 

[hclarkjr]

this is something i am wondering about too as i see some people trying to go back to core2duo in the for sale forum here. i think quads are a little ahead of their time and need the software part to catch up to it. i plan on getting a quad and keep telling myself to be patient and wait. but for me that is tough!! 🙂

 

[DSF]

Originally posted by: BlueAcolyte
Yes, if the single-threaded apps use different cores.

And if the applications are so CPU-intensive that a dual-core could not handle multiple applications per core.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: BlueAcolyte
Yes, if the single-threaded apps use different cores.

The OS handles that. If you have 4 different apps running, the OS will assign CPU's as required. And if you have 8 apps running, and each one takes 50% of a core, you are still OK.

Bottom line ? The more stuff you do at once, the more reason to use a quad core...

OR

The more threads an app can use, the more reason to use a quad core.

 

[BoboKatt]

I used to assign various apps to actual CPU cores on my quad but now I just don?t bother.
I am just hoping/assuming the OS should be allocating threads correctly.

I do mainly video encoding and now that I use mainly multithreaded apps, the difference is phenomenal. However when I try and run say quickpar to verify and archive of .rar files and then decide to unrar say 3 archives from one drive to another all at the same time? it?s like I?m back in the stone age. I would surmise though this is simply the channel bandwidth of my SATA/hardrives etc and read/write limitations and NOT the CPU?s. No amount of CPU?s will ever change that.

I always hoped I could do things like that? unrar 5 archives, while downloading something and having my email open, listening to mp3?s and surfing the net and encoding or converting a video file from one format to another in the background? but alas it simply cripples my system. You can do more with a quad but up to a point.

 

[fastman]

Originally posted by: BoboKatt
I used to assign various apps to actual CPU cores on my quad but now I just don?t bother.
I am just hoping/assuming the OS should be allocating threads correctly.

I do mainly video encoding and now that I use mainly multithreaded apps, the difference is phenomenal. However when I try and run say quickpar to verify and archive of .rar files and then decide to unrar say 3 archives from one drive to another all at the same time? it?s like I?m back in the stone age. I would surmise though this is simply the channel bandwidth of my SATA/hardrives etc and read/write limitations and NOT the CPU?s. No amount of CPU?s will ever change that.

I always hoped I could do things like that? unrar 5 archives, while downloading something and having my email open, listening to mp3?s and surfing the net and encoding or converting a video file from one format to another in the background? but alas it simply cripples my system. You can do more with a quad but up to a point.

Most of what you describe is hard drive intensive, so yes until hard drives catch up you will be limited unfortunately.

Maybe when large solid state HD's become avail this will change.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: fastman

Originally posted by: BoboKatt
I used to assign various apps to actual CPU cores on my quad but now I just don?t bother.
I am just hoping/assuming the OS should be allocating threads correctly.

I do mainly video encoding and now that I use mainly multithreaded apps, the difference is phenomenal. However when I try and run say quickpar to verify and archive of .rar files and then decide to unrar say 3 archives from one drive to another all at the same time? it?s like I?m back in the stone age. I would surmise though this is simply the channel bandwidth of my SATA/hardrives etc and read/write limitations and NOT the CPU?s. No amount of CPU?s will ever change that.

I always hoped I could do things like that? unrar 5 archives, while downloading something and having my email open, listening to mp3?s and surfing the net and encoding or converting a video file from one format to another in the background? but alas it simply cripples my system. You can do more with a quad but up to a point.

Most of what you describe is hard drive intensive, so yes until hard drives catch up you will be limited unfortunately.

Maybe when large solid state HD's become avail this will change.

Raid5

I use 80% of each core while encoding with the rig in sig.

 

[tenax]

yeah, noticed yesterday when i was transcoding a large video file, my quad was using 50 to 67% of my quad combined processing power..which i actually found quite disappointing. i was curious then how much of it my dual core 6400 would have used. (don't have it installed anywhere so can't check, but wish i had). but i suppose it's not about how much more of less cpu useage but the time in which it can do the task?