-=PCTechTalk=- Re: Single vs Dual Core speeds
- From: "Don101" <don101@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <pctechtalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:12:51 -0400
I didn't *know* but had a good idea that would be the answer. To make sure
I understand all the rest of the your answer....
2 substantially identical computers. One with a 2.2 GHz dual core
processor, one with a 2.2GHz single core processor.
A perfect, virgin clean install of a retail copy of Win XP Pro. Literally
nothing else installed.
A folder with 3,000 MP3 files.
Which computer will Move those files to a second hard drive faster? (I
suspect the dual core will)
Keep the 2.2 GHz dual core (since that is typical fastest sold at Wal-Mart)
but change the single core to a 3.0 GHz P4 with Hyperthread Technology.
Which will be faster?
(I suspect it will be close with the 3 GHz P4 maybe having a slight edge)
The same scenario as above, except I just deleted 8400 messages spread out
over 3 dozen folders in Outlook Express. I start compacting folders at the
same time as I start moving those MP3 files.
I suspect the dual core will run circles around the single core (both the
2.2 and the 3.0 GHz) since Windows Explorer and Outlook Express would each
have their own core.
To what extent will WinXP Pro recognize and use dual core technology? If a
person buys a 64-bit dual core processor, would it make a substantial
difference to pay extra for a 64-bit operating system? Would it do better
at utilizing a dual core processor?
Do you know of any multi-threading software for consumers? Either in
existence or being written as we speak.
Don
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gman" <gman.pctt@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <pctechtalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 3:53 PM
Subject: -=PCTechTalk=- Re: Single vs Dual Core speeds
> Yes, No & Maybe, but you already knew that. ;0}
>
> When it comes to making direct comparisons, everything is dependent on
> everything else. Within a given system, it's just as important to note
> what
> it will be used for as it is to make sure the review systems are as
> closely
> matched as possible. As you said, running an OS and software that is not
> multi-threaded will yield no noticeable difference between a single core
> proc and one side of a dual-core (or one quarter of a quad-core, etc.).
> However, very few people still run an OS that doesn't at least recognize
> multiple, hyperthreaded or multi-core CPUs.
>
> As long as the OS is designed for true multitasking (as opposed to
> task-switching), you will get more done faster with more than one thread
> working at a time. Even if you only run one single-threaded app all by
> itself (nothing else opened) within a multi-core system, it will still
> complete faster than a single core proc because the OS itself has a lot
> going on in the background. Having more than one core allows the system
> to
> split duties between the cores so that they interfere with each other
> less.
> On the other hand, give it a multi-threaded task to run and the proc will
> REALLY show off what it can do.
>
> Then, you have folks like me who normally have 12 different windows open
> and
> are working on several projects at once (many of them for you folks, I
> might
> add lol). When I made the switch over to a dual-core system, most of
> my own 'wait times' went away completely. I still have to wait for web
> pages to load (a product of my DSL speed), programs to start up (a product
> of bloatware) and I still have to manually select whichever windows are
> brought to the front so I can work with them (I can't wait for true speech
> recognition and full speech control over the OS), but once they're up and
> running, I no longer have to wait for one process to finish before Windows
> can get to what I really need done before I can move onto my next step.
> Add
> in the time it takes for an OS to switch between processes and it's easy
> to
> see how 6 processes broken up across 2 cores will complete more than twice
> as fast as the same processes hoisted upon a single core, and this is
> assuming that all 6 processes are single threaded. If only half of them
> are
> multi-threaded, the time to completion will be dramatically reduced even
> further.
>
> Of course, there's a LOT more to this than what I've covered, but I hope
> it
> gives you some insight into how much more these multi-core processors are
> than what initially meets the eye. As die sizes continue to shrink, heat
> issues will continue to follow and they may eventually get back to
> increasing the top speeds of the Chips they make for us. In the meantime,
> we are still gaining tremendous benefits from the inclusion of additional
> cores. As more and more apps are redesigned to take advantage of
> multi-threading, those benefits will be magnified greatly. In other
> words,
> if you buy a multi-core proc today and never upgrade again, you will
> continue to see significant gains as more apps adapt to the technology.
>
> Peace,
> G
>
> "The only dumb questions are the ones that are never asked"
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <dsw32952@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <pctechtalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 12:54 PM
> Subject: -=PCTechTalk=- Single vs Dual Core speeds
>
>
>>
>> All else being as equal as possible to make a faie comparison - is a 3GHz
>> single core processor faster or slower than a dual core operating at a
>> typical 2.0 GHz speed?
>>
>> It seems to me that without an OS and software written to support the
>> dual
>> core that there will be little if any benefit to a dual core processor
>> unless each core operates at the same (or near same) speed as the single
>> core being compared to.
>>
>> Ditto with 64-bit processors.
>>
>> Can someone here put all this 32/64-bit single/dual/triple/quad-core
>> gobbledy-gook into a perspective that makes sense to me (and everyone
>> else
>> here)?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Don
---------------------------------------------------------------
Please remember to trim your replies (including this sentence and everything
below it) and adjust the subject line as necessary.
To unsubscribe or change your email settings:
//www.freelists.org/webpage/pctechtalk
To access our Archives:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PCTechTalk/messages/
//www.freelists.org/archives/pctechtalk/
To contact only the PCTT Mod Squad, write to:
pctechtalk-moderators@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
---------------------------------------------------------------
Other related posts:
