Stupid Question: What does dual core mean in real-world performance right now?

[OhNoPoPo]

I've read a lot of articles, read a lot of benchmarks -- the general impression that I get is that not a lot of real world performance gains are to be had right now with dual core over a single core. But I'm wary of benchmarks...

1) I'm not a gamer. I play Warcraft 3; let's just say that not quite a "new" game.

2) The main complaints are my current rig (3.6 P4, 6800 Nvidia, 1gb ram) are: sometimes there are delays when switching around programs, after something big downloads it takes forever to "process" (I don't really get what it is doing...it gets to 99% and starts "copying" to the desktop even tho that is the location I downloaded to), and general "snappiness" sometimes. Are these all ram or Hdd speed related? Or can a dual core actually improve these processes?

3) When does the second core actually kick in? Most apps are not dual core aware, so how does the OS allocate resources? Can someone explain this in a plain english, simple manner?

 

[Bobthelost]

Dual core might help a touch, but 2GB of RAM will help more. The major factor in switching between programs ime is the RAM.

 

[Absolute0]

^^ What he said. Honestly, going from 1gb to 2gb for me has made a much bigger difference than single core to dual core

 

[OhNoPoPo]

Wow, really. Hmmmm. I might have the think about that then!

 

[robertk2012]

Originally posted by: OhNoPoPo
I've read a lot of articles, read a lot of benchmarks -- the general impression that I get is that not a lot of real world performance gains are to be had right now with dual core over a single core. But I'm wary of benchmarks...

1) I'm not a gamer. I play Warcraft 3; let's just say that not quite a "new" game.

2) The main complaints are my current rig (3.6 P4, 6800 Nvidia, 1gb ram) are: sometimes there are delays when switching around programs, after something big downloads it takes forever to "process" (I don't really get what it is doing...it gets to 99% and starts "copying" to the desktop even tho that is the location I downloaded to), and general "snappiness" sometimes. Are these all ram or Hdd speed related? Or can a dual core actually improve these processes?

3) When does the second core actually kick in? Most apps are not dual core aware, so how does the OS allocate resources? Can someone explain this in a plain english, simple manner?

Ram helps but it sounds more like a hard drive problem or spyware/virus problem to me.
What kind of drive do you have? Do you check for spyware/virus?

 

[Zap]

1) That game runs fine on your system. Upgrading will not make that game work any better.

2) You are right in your assessment that "snappiness" is RAM and HDD related. That "copying" which Windows does at the end of a large download (actually every download, but you only notice it on larger ones) is because of the inefficiency of how Internet Explorer deals with downloads. How it works is that it first downloads to your Temporary Internet Files, then after the download is complete, it copies (not moves) it over to wherever you wanted to download it into. If it just downloaded directly there, then it would be faster and you would not see that "copying." A faster HDD will alleviate some of that but never get rid of it alltogether. A faster HDD and more RAM may also help make your system feel "snappier." Another thing is... a Windows reinstall. That usually works wonders to unbloat Windows.

3) The second core is always active. Unless the software actually can use the second core, Windows tries to balance the workload for you transparent to the software (unless it is software that doesn't like dual core and will crap out - those exist). If Windows were to distribute programs on one or the other core I think it would be more efficient, kind of like running all system stuff on one core only and whatever application you are using on the second core only. As it is, trying to run all programs across both cores doesn't seem the most efficient to me. I've had some luck with CPU intensive stuff to manually assign "affinity" meaning put them on one or the other core and then multitasking seems even smoother than letting Windows take care of it. However, that option is not available if you don't have dual core.

 

[Duvie]

Maybe in your case.....HDD and RAM, but dual core is a big difference in real world outside of the gaming bunch here, and ppl who chronically run benches...

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=28&threadid=1830732&enterthread=y


How anyone can deny video encoding, dvd shrinking, CAD animation, etc are real world uses with a big difference, I dont know...I guess I chalk them up to ppl who really dont use their PC...I use it for work, entertainment, and basic fun...

 

[Woodchuck2000]

It's most useful when you're a serious multi-tasker - i've recently gone dual-core and love the fact that I can encode/zip/compile something in the background and still use the system as normal.

There are lots of little things like large hi-res print jobs not slowing the system down which become apparent and make it very worthwhile.

Especially when you can pick up a Pentium D 805 for peanuts, it's well worth it.
That said, if you can stretch to an extra gig of ram as well, that's also a good move!

 

[Duvie]

It is most useful when you run apps like I listed....It is a no-brainer if you multitask with 2 cpu intensive apps....You would think most ppl could find 2 apps....so basically it should be obvious to everyone....

The rest of the ppl need to buy an xbox 360 and put the computer away....Just my 2 cents...

 

[Markfw]

What Duvie said. And I think your biggest problem is HDD. If you REALLY want speed, go a 15k SCSI raid array in raid0 with a good caching controller. A lot of money, but its really worht it IF you need the speed.

If thats out of budget, get a second or third drive, and install OS on one, apps on one, data on one, etc...

 

[Fluence]

The perpendicular drives like the 7200.10s look very promising in this area.

7200.10 review link

 

[the Chase]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
What Duvie said. And I think your biggest problem is HDD. If you REALLY want speed, go a 15k SCSI raid array in raid0 with a good caching controller. A lot of money, but its really worht it IF you need the speed.

If thats out of budget, get a second or third drive, and install OS on one, apps on one, data on one, etc...

Whoa- 5 Cheetah's in Raid 0 - that's gotta be blindingly fast....someday...But you do know that you just increased your odds of a hard drive failure by 5 times right?

Edit- with 128meg. cache controller card yet..Wow.

 

[shl0791]

if you can help it; besides using a dual core cpu, upgrading the memory, make sure to run at least 2 hardrives on the pc, and turning off caching on the C: primary hd; but turn it on for the other hd. that way, the programs load and run from c:, and get cached from d:. It will be faster to load.

 

[pcoffman]

Originally posted by: Fluence
The perpendicular drives like the 7200.10s look very promising ...

7200.10 review link

:thumbsup:

Here's another review of a 7200.10 hard drive using perpendicular recording technology. Very promising indeed.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: pcoffman

Originally posted by: Fluence
The perpendicular drives like the 7200.10s look very promising ...

7200.10 review link

:thumbsup:

Here's another review of a 7200.10 hard drive using perpendicular recording technology. Very promising indeed.

Alright, when will Outpost have the 7200.10 in 400GB size (two platters) for under $200? My credit card is ready.

Originally posted by: Duvie
How anyone can deny video encoding, dvd shrinking, CAD animation, etc are real world uses with a big difference

Those are definately real world uses for a computer... but not everyone does those things. I don't. You're saying I should buy an Xbox360 and put away my PC? Not likely.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Zap

Originally posted by: pcoffman

Originally posted by: Fluence
The perpendicular drives like the 7200.10s look very promising ...

7200.10 review link

:thumbsup:

Here's another review of a 7200.10 hard drive using perpendicular recording technology. Very promising indeed.

Alright, when will Outpost have the 7200.10 in 400GB size (two platters) for under $200? My credit card is ready.

Originally posted by: Duvie
How anyone can deny video encoding, dvd shrinking, CAD animation, etc are real world uses with a big difference

Those are definately real world uses for a computer... but not everyone does those things. I don't. You're saying I should buy an Xbox360 and put away my PC? Not likely.

the general impression that I get is that not a lot of real world performance gains are to be had right now with dual core over a single core.

After this comment I am just saying the only morons who can make this statement are gamers and therefore I dont consider it a very worthy use of a PC...a sole use that is...I cant imagine that any user other then a gamer only has to be able to see real world tangible performance now...If not they just are not using a modern PC to its compacity and damn near could be happy with cpus from 2 years ago...

 

[bluemax]

Well... for us NON-gamers who like to multitask but not with large, instensive programs (usually...) Would a plain old P4 with Hyperthreading do *almost* as well as a dual-core setup?

Or should I just go Athlon64 to have a cool & quiet-running system rather than spend big bucks on a 3rd party HS/F to add to a Prescott (single or dual.)

How does the A64 handle several differenct (eg)Office apps, winAmp and browsers all at once? (Maybe the occasional DVDshrink in the background which is pretty intensive but doesn't happen long or often.)


I'm definately game to jump to the full 2GB! Rather spend the money on that than fancy CPU , mega-cooler and overclocking mobo.

 

[pcoffman]

Originally posted by: Zap
Alright, when will Outpost have the 7200.10 in 400GB size (two platters) for under $200? My credit card is ready.

The last time that I tried to get a state of the art hard drive from Fry's, I was SOL, and had to order them online, not through Outpost.com though, if you're talking about Fry's Electronics' Outpost.

I don't think that the lower capacity drives are out yet: only the 750 GB drives. (PriceGrabber only lists the large size). $0.63 / GB.

Patience

 

[pcoffman]

Originally posted by: bluemax
for us NON-gamers who like to multitask ... Would a plain old P4 with Hyperthreading do *almost* as well as a dual-core setup?

Dual-core is much better than hyperthreading, if benchmarks mean anything. Dual-core is the way to go. I don't care if it's AMD or Intel. BTW, moving to hyperthreading or dual-core makes more sense for non-gamers than gamers, because almost all current games are single-threaded and can't take advantage of that extra core, whether it's actual or simulated.

Maybe the occasional DVDshrink in the background

This is another reason to go with a dual-core chip, because this program is very resource intensive, and will hog almost all of our CPU if you let it. You can set affinity to just one core, however, and go on with your other work, if you have two cores.

 

[JSFLY]

2) The main complaints are my current rig (3.6 P4, 6800 Nvidia, 1gb ram) are: sometimes there are delays when switching around programs, after something big downloads it takes forever to "process" (I don't really get what it is doing...it gets to 99% and starts "copying" to the desktop even tho that is the location I downloaded to), and general "snappiness" sometimes. Are these all ram or Hdd speed related? Or can a dual core actually improve these processes?


Yes dual cores help with these problems. I remember my computer always running extremely slow when zipping/raring/unzipping large files. Now with my opteron I hardly notice any slowdowns at all.

 

[NaOH]

Originally posted by: shl0791
if you can help it; besides using a dual core cpu, upgrading the memory, make sure to run at least 2 hardrives on the pc, and turning off caching on the C: primary hd; but turn it on for the other hd. that way, the programs load and run from c:, and get cached from d:. It will be faster to load.

Is this true? I have my OS and apps loaded on my ide 160 gb wd and my games and flac loaded on my sata 160gb wd (sata channel 3) right now. I have dual core btw. I was hoping to take away the hdd bottle neck. ie...running CCE encoding on main hdd while running game from other.

 

[hclarkjr]

i went from a san diego core athlon 3700 to a X2 4200 and noticed nice increase in everyday things i do with my computer. i mainly use my computer for light gaming, interent and ripping the occasional DVD with DVDshrink. to me it is like having 2 3700's at the same time. where the 2 cores come in handy for me is when i have multiple browser windows open and playing games and other stuff. i have already ripped and burned a DVD with DVDshrink and was able to do other things while the DVD was burning. plus as time goes on more and more apps will be able to use dual core systems. WinRAR has a beta out now that uses dual core CPU's

 

[pcoffman]

Originally posted by: AMDUALY

Originally posted by: shl0791
make sure to run at least 2 hardrives on the pc, and turning off caching on the C: primary hd; but turn it on for the other hd. that way, the programs load and run from c:, and get cached from d:. It will be faster to load.

Is this true?

If he is talking about moving the paging file or virtual memory off the physical hard drive that contains the XP %systemroot% folder (typically the drive with the OS) to another hard drive, then, yes, it is supposed to help performance. The idea is that a hard drive controller can read and write to different hard drives at the same time. I guess the drive with the OS is the busiest. Moving the paging file to a different hard drive is supposed to avoid competition between reading and writing requests.

My question is, how much performance does this buy? Alot or a little?

 

[bluemax]

Any more real-world performances?

I'm seriously debating between the 805 w/ 1.5GB of RAM, or a Sempron 754 with 2GB of RAM.

The 805 will need serious cooling.... I'm a little concerned about how hot it runs when overclocked.... even when not.

 

[kalrith]

I upgraded from a p4 2.4c at 3.2GHz to the opty dual-core in my sig. My main complaints with the system were the same as the OP's (and interestingly enough I was playing Warcraft 3 on my old system as well, but I certainly didn't upgrade because of that). My system now never slows down, unless I'm running prime95 in the background. I can even run Ad-Aware and actually use my system at the same time, which I couldn't do before. I don't run any really intensive programs, but I typically have 20+ IE windows open along with Word and a bunch of other stuff as well. I still have a p4 3.0GHz at work, and it's so annoying when I try to multitask. It has hyper-threading, but that's not even close to the capabilities of dual-core.

I know that you're looking for real-world performance and not benchmarks, but just try some benchmarks on your current system to see the comparison between hyper-threading and dual-core. Install SuperPI in two different locations on your hard drive. Open just one and calculate PI to 1M digits and write down the result (it takes less than a minute). Then, open them both and set their affinities to different cores in Windows task manager. Calculate PI to 1M digits again (running both of them at the same time) and compare those times to running it once. I did this with my opty dual-core and my work computer. The opty calculated it once in 33s and twice in 34s. The P4 with HT calculated it once in 49s and twice in 1m 11s. So, the opty slowed down 3% when multitasking and the P4 slowed down 45% when multitasking! I know you didn't want benchmarks, but I thought it was relevant since I see this translate into real-world performance every single day when I go from my work computer to my home computer. If you want to see and even bigger difference, then calculate PI to 32M digits.