Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Processor Question


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 Blade Kiro

Blade Kiro

  • Members
  • 22 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:05:37 PM

Posted 19 February 2009 - 11:42 PM

I was thinking about getting a new computer when I noticed the processing speed (http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=9174564&type=product&id=1218044490119&srccode=cii_11234&cpncode=23-4232158&cmp=KA14525&ref=16&loc=02 - Computer) and noticed that the GHz is lower then my current computer.

My current computer is a single core running with 2.53GHz, while this one is a quad core running with 2.33GHz. Thanks to wikipedia, I'm almost 99% sure it's faster then my single core, but I wanted to know a question.

Let's say for example I was running a game that recommended a processing speed of 3.0GHz, single core. Would the quad be fast enough? It says it's good for multitasking, but could 2 cores help run the game or not? If one game is limited to that 2.33 speed, I might have to rethink the purchase. :'(

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 Guest_Jay-P VIP_*

Guest_Jay-P VIP_*

  • Guests
  • OFFLINE
  •  

Posted 19 February 2009 - 11:53 PM

It very much is faster...four cores. Four * 2.33 GHz

:thumbsup:

#3 fairjoeblue

fairjoeblue

  • Members
  • 1,594 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

Posted 19 February 2009 - 11:59 PM

With the advent of Core2Duo & quad core CPU's you can't comparte them to single core CPU's by GHz .

A quad core 2.33GHz will trounce [and then some] a single core 2.53GHz .
A Q core 2.33 will run any game that requires a single core 3GHz CPU.

When you look at the system requirements for a game you are usually looking at the minimum requirements to run the game.
So, If it said P4 3.0GHz that would mean P4 3.0GHz or BETTER .

A Q core of anyspeed is definatly better.

A Core2Duo of about any speed is better then a P4 3.0GHz single core CPU for that matter.

The "core" processors have newer, better, technologly & by merit of their design process faster at lower GHz then the older single core CPU's .
OCZ StealthXstream 700W,Gigabyte GA-EP45-UD3R , E8500, Arctic Freezer Pro 7, 3GB G.Skill PC8500,Gigabyte Radeon HD 4850 OC [1GB ], Seagate 250GB SATA II X2 in RAID 0, Samsung SATA DVD burner.

#4 DJBPace07

DJBPace07

  • BC Advisor
  • 4,869 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:05:37 PM

Posted 20 February 2009 - 12:03 AM

Of course, in order to use multiple cores, the application must have been designed to use them.

3939.png

 


#5 Blade Kiro

Blade Kiro
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 22 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:06:37 PM

Posted 20 February 2009 - 12:03 AM

Thanks very much guys. Was kinda unsure. ='D

EDIT: Yeah that's what I was asking DJBPace07. Luckily Valve's Source Engine can do that. So I'll be playing me some Left 4 Dead. =D

Edited by Blade Kiro, 20 February 2009 - 12:04 AM.


#6 fairjoeblue

fairjoeblue

  • Members
  • 1,594 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Local time:05:37 PM

Posted 20 February 2009 - 12:09 AM

"in order to use multiple cores, the application must have been designed to use them. "

While that is true a lower speed C2D or quad would still work faster then a P4 because the front bus is higher + the work load can be split between the 2 or 4 CPU's instead of 1 having to do it all.
OCZ StealthXstream 700W,Gigabyte GA-EP45-UD3R , E8500, Arctic Freezer Pro 7, 3GB G.Skill PC8500,Gigabyte Radeon HD 4850 OC [1GB ], Seagate 250GB SATA II X2 in RAID 0, Samsung SATA DVD burner.

#7 DJBPace07

DJBPace07

  • BC Advisor
  • 4,869 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:05:37 PM

Posted 20 February 2009 - 05:38 PM

Yes, Core 2's are more efficient than the P4's when they both share similar clocks. Workload is split between multiple processors if the application supports it. If the application does not, the OS can balance out its workload to maximize the efficiency of the single core. If a program has been designed to take advantage of multiple cores, it will certainly be faster if you have a multi-core CPU, but currently there are few programs able to take full advantage of more than two cores. Try running a game designed for a single core CPU to see what I mean. I ran The Sims 2, which is one such application, on my current PC that has a quad core with a 9800 GTX graphics card. It was actually slower on this PC than my friends 3GHz Pentium 4.

3939.png

 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users