-=PCTechTalk=- Re: Single vs Dual Core speeds
- From: Gman <gman.pctt@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <pctechtalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:48:02 -0400
Below
Peace,
G
"The only dumb questions are the ones that are never asked"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don101" <don101@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <pctechtalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 12:12 AM
Subject: -=PCTechTalk=- Re: Single vs Dual Core speeds
>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)
The most significant bottleneck in any modern computer system is the
throughput of the hard drive controller. Given the choice between a SATA or
SATA 3G, I will take the 3G version every time. However, there is no
difference in data transfer speed today because of this bottleneck. My
reason for selecting the faster one (on paper) is that my next mainboard or
the one after that might be just advanced enough to take advantage of at
least some of that extra capability. As a result of hard drive data
transfer speed limitations, it doesn't matter which CPU you have in this
system. Both will be slowed down to the limited speed of the hard drive
controller.
> 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)
I understand your direction here, but file transfer is not the right example
to use for seeing the differences. If the question had included rendering a
3D image or some other computationally intensive activity, you would then be
asked if the app in question was designed for multi-threading. The answer
to that would then go a long way towards determining what you're trying to
learn.
> 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.
NOW you're talkin'!!! Multiple processes, even if those processes are run
on single threaded apps (applications that can only handle one thing at a
time), will be treated as multiple threads (which they are, except that they
don't belong to the same app). In this scenario, the multi-core system will
knock out the single core system every time. No contest, even against the
3.0Ghz processor.
> 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.
You peeked at my answer, didn't ya? lol
> 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?
This is a completely different question AND thread than what I have been
discussing. I do know that you initially asked about 64-bit computing, but
it seemed to be only in passing, so I basically ignored it in my previous
reply. I didn't do this to keep you in the dark. I only left the question
alone because the two subjects are mutually exclusive and far too vast in
scope to mix together. If you want me to comment on 64-bit computing,
please start a separate thread so we don't end up confusing everyone.
:O)
> Do you know of any multi-threading software for consumers? Either in
> existence or being written as we speak.
Photoshop is a perfect example of a multi-threaded application. Since it's
used for professional image manipulating by many Art Departments of highly
successful businesses, it has had this ability for many generations. Most
of the professional systems it's run on are built around multiple CPU's
occupying 2 or 4 separate CPU sockets on the same mainboard which can take
advantage of multi-threaded apps even easier than multi-core CPU packages
which much share certain resources such as memory busses, RAM, etc.
There are plenty of multi-threaded apps both 'in the wild' as well as in
development. to find them, just run a search for a type of app and include
the term 'multi threaded' (no quotes). The cream will rise to the top.
> Don
Gman
---------------------------------------------------------------
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:
