Discussion in 'OT Technology' started by azucarpapi, Sep 21, 2008.
Where is the difference going to become apparent to me?
When running multiple apps/processes. Ever have 3-4 windows open, and your shit grinds to a halt? Happens to me every day. 4 cores makes it harder to do that.
3-4 windows and it grinds to a halt?
Time to dump the Pentium 2 n00b...
I've got a Q6600 and I can run 3 different CS3 Master Suite programs, half a dozen browsers, and who knows what else and it doesn't phase it.
I guess you're just smarter than me at how to use your computer.
that's funny. my single core p4 3ghz with 4gb ram runs Adobe cs3, 9+windows of Firefox, Office/oulook, etc.. and it doesn't choke
but again.. I know how to build machines
Wow. You guys must make better use of your resources than me.
I had a single 3.4ghz i ran vmware on it a lot with two different os running win2003 x2 depending on what i was doing some popcap games, yahoo and msn, vpn and winamp i didnt have to much trouble with it but i upgraded to a amd triple core processor today
multi-tasking != multi-threading
you can only mutli-task so much,... ram and bandwidth being the usual limiting factor.
Multi-tasking is how you take advantage of multi-core processors when most apps don't multi-thread very well. As long as you have lots of RAM, multiple cores make a huge difference when running multiple apps under a heavy load.
I have an old AMD64 3200+ so anything will be a huge upgrade obviously, I was just wondering how important it would be to go with the quad core, seems like a duo should exceed my needs, with proper peripherals of course.
With a desktop, what I've found with extra processors/cores, is that they help the computer age much better. Once its past its prime you don't notice it as much because they are able to maintain responsiveness in the user interface even under load. I've used old dual processor servers as workstations and they were fine, whereas a single proc of comparable speed would have been a dog.
The Duo would be fine now. The Quad will serve your needs longer. Assuming its not tons more expensive, I'd get the quad.
1. a single-threaded app will always see/use only 1 core.
2. multi-tasking are false parallels. it gives you the illusion that apps/processes are running simultaneously, but in fact, it's not.
the OS' kernel can assign as many apps/process to other cores,.. but say if you have this one single app that is utilizing all of your ram and bus,... the OS will still wait for that app to free off resources before it can execute the other apps. in this scenario, multi-cores won't help you.
3. say if the apps being multi-tasked do consume low resources,... what makes you think a slower quad will be better than a faster dual-core?
This statement is literally false. The apps/processes ARE running at the same time.
Obviously you need a lot of RAM to utilize multi-cores and to multi-task effectively. In a saturated IO situation, multi-cores WILL help you, but you are still I/O bound. Pretty nice that you can still do stuff and interact with your computer though, while you wait on the I/O, don't ya think? As I already explained, the reality is that you get to keep your PC much longer as the improved responsiveness keeps it usable. Have you ever used an older multi-processor PC? Sounds like you never have.
What makes you think that I think that?
god, peyomp, you suck. i'm still using my Pentium 75 with 64Mb of ram and an 8Gb hard drive and it fuckin flies with Vista 64-bit!!!!
anyway, to the OP, if the prices are close, go quad. the extra cores are nice to have, especially since that is the way desktops are finally going. so, apps are only going to better utilize multiple cores more and more in the not so distant future.
I know, I must be stupid or something cause I always manage to overload and grind to a halt any computer I work on.
I'm gonna guess you've never actually used your computer for anything.
That being said, I wrote a program that lets me automatically adjust process priorities and CPU allocation, and now I can run 2 VMs and Photoshop and Firefox on a single-core machine without my shit becoming unresponsive. It's slow, of course, but it works. So it's not entirely about the number of cores you have.
google and understand the concepts of 'context switching'; 'wait times'; 'scheduling algorithms'; 'interrupts'.
none of these terms will exist if I'm wrong.
Of course I do. How the hell else am I supposed to heat my apartment.
I'm pretty sure [email protected] doesn't count. And I know Firefox is pretty needy, but I'm afraid it doesn't count either.
umm... you're wrong by the way. based on your assumptions, there would be no use in 128 cpu servers because multi-tasking is fake. multi-tasking on a single cpu is faked because no two processes are ever running concurrently. on a multi-cpu (cpu, core, thread, whatever you want to call it), you can have true multitasking. context switching is when you have more runnable processes then available processors. please don't spread your ignorance.
multiprocessing =! multitasking
You are dumb as rocks.
and yet everyone is laughing at you
prove me wrong
just stop posting now ok it gets old after a point...
go wiki up the difference between "parallelism"(aka NUMA) , "multi-threading ", "symmetric multiprocessing", "asymmetric-multiprocessing" (ASMP-what we use in Linux clusters), SMP, threading, scheduling etc...
then come back in here and talk to us...
Start here first...
and let us know how you feel after this...
You guys are stupid. You don't actually know anything about this topic, and you're not making actual arguments, just citing certain instances where more cores won't be better, or general references without making actual arguments. Well no shit there are special cases. But when running 4 apps under any load, whenever CPU usage is up, 4 cores will kill 2, or 1. Thats not the case when you run out of RAM? Wow. What a shocker! If your bottleneck is the disk and not the CPU, more cores won't help? Gee whiz, another shocker!
Its also obvious that you've never actually USED computers with many cores. If you had, you would realize just how silly you sound.
That you don't get that means you are dumb as rocks. Go read your own wikipedia links and get back to me with an argument, m-kay kiddies?