Quad core

[Deleted User]

RobTang wrote: »

The thing is even with basic apps you are probably going to be running more then 4 threads anyway (over several programs), so as long as the OS and chip are doing proper allocation you will get use out of them.

then again most CPUs are silly fast anyway so you probably wont notice.

The Operating System will schedule some threads onto processors if they are available, although it may well be for efficiency rather than performance reasons.

Still some people do run loads of background apps ive got, media centre, virtualdub, 2 instances of sql server, sql management studio,IIS, msn, anti-virus, outlook, the onenote bg app, VS2008, and a bazillion tabs spread across ie and ff.

And it all runs nice and smoothly, somthing which my dual core wouldn't be so happy about.

I'm fairly sure that recent AMD and Intel multicore processors make available the full L3 cache to whichever core requires it, rather than limiting each core to a portion of the overall amount. That certainly would speed things up significantly.

kwikbreaks wrote: »

@anewhope So essentially you are saying that things have not moved on since I last looked (probably over a year ago now). TBH I'm not overly surprised as I got the distinct impression that producing compilers which could make efficient use of multiple cores was a difficult task and hand crafting applications for multicore very time consuming (as well as difficult).

I think within about 18-24 months we're going to be seeing more home/office applications being designed around 64 bit architecture and multicore proceesors becoming common place, rather than the more specific function software that is available at the moment.

TBH I've lost track of cutting edge processors - I have two machines powered by Atoms and two low end core duo machines. I think the most expensive cost less than a top of the range processor yet they all fill my admittedly not very demanding needs.

Which is where a lot of people get confused. They don't know what will meet their needs and what wont, so they fall victim to the easy sell based on the numberss.

savemoney

I have a quad and use Vista own widget that shows how much ram, cores are used, rarely do more than 2 cores get used for normal usage.

epninety

clickclash wrote: »

Quad Cores are worthless unless you are encoding video, save your money, get Duel.

He's right... it's best to have a decent film to watch while waiting for the PC to finish :rotfl:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067023/

PROLIANT

What are you planning on doing with your "quad core" CPU? Processing data on behalf of CERN while playing Halo 3? :think:

Pobby

Well it`s a tax right off and I tend to change my puter about every 4 years. Thought it might have a bit of future proofing there. It`s used for everything. Business, games and also shortly as a music recording studio. Massive hard drive, lots of memory.

Using my old version of XP but if seven is any good will possibly go with that. I didn`t want a larger screen. Anyway it seems to do the job quite well .

Strider590

Your internet and email will be faster and your computer safer from online threats!!! or so I hear from PC salemen when I pretend to be an IT muggle. I love winding them up

Marty_J

I saw an 8 core Mac Pro rip a film from a DVD and convert it to an mp4 file in less than 10 minutes.

Seriously impressive stuff.

timbim_2

PROLIANT wrote: »

What are you planning on doing with your "quad core" CPU? Processing data on behalf of CERN while playing Halo 3? :think:

Not too much of a strain, seeing as you'd need an xbox 360 to play Halo 3, so zero strain on the quad core!

isofa

Pobby wrote: »

Well it`s a tax right off

Are you an MP

DatabaseError

Marty_J wrote: »

I saw an 8 core Mac Pro rip a film from a DVD and convert it to an mp4 file in less than 10 minutes.

Seriously impressive stuff.

My quad does the reverse in around the same time