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

multi-core question????


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 liquidmonkey

liquidmonkey

  • Members
  • 86 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:12:39 PM

Posted 04 July 2009 - 08:39 AM

i have a core i7 920 and use as a utility to monitor when each of the 4 cores is being used.

i have noticed that very very seldom do all four cores get used and even more seldom does a core ever go above 20% or 40%. maybe this is normal and i don't get how multi-cores are supposed to work but i thought that when a program such as photoshop, lightroom, VLC (playing 1080p movies) or a game needs more power then ALL CORES would be used and it would show well over 50% usage.

some tasks take too long IMHO and the monitor shows the cores just around 5 or 10%. shouldn't they be at over 50% to speed things up?

is it possible to force core usuage at all?
win7 Ultimate 64bit
2 x 24" LG Monitors
Intel Core i7 920 with Xigmatek HDT-S1283
ASUS P6T WS PRO
12gigs of OCZ Gold XTC Triple Channel 6x2gig DDR3 1333MHz PC10600
XFX Nvidia GTX 260 core 216
Corsair TX750W
Cooler Master 690
HDD Total = F I V E TB!!

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 Sterling14

Sterling14

  • Members
  • 1,842 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York
  • Local time:12:39 PM

Posted 04 July 2009 - 09:02 AM

Many programs are still not able to utilize more than one core working on it at a time.

Some tasks may take too long because of ram being bogged down, or more than likely, the hard drive. Hard drive's generally cause a great amount of slowdown in a system, which many people overlook.

You can try speeding things up by going to task manager, right clicking on a process, and setting the priority higher. I'm not sure how well it will work for you specifically, but it doesn't hurt to try!
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." - Thomas Watson, Chairman of IBM, 1943

#3 DaChew

DaChew

    Visiting Alien


  • Members
  • 10,317 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:millenium falcon and rockytop
  • Local time:01:39 PM

Posted 04 July 2009 - 10:08 AM

If you want to use more cpu in a multithreaded enviroment, you have to do some some heavy duty video work. Graphics and even games are no match for that i7.
Chewy

No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try.

#4 DeathStalker

DeathStalker

  • Banned
  • 868 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:01:39 PM

Posted 04 July 2009 - 10:01 PM

The "need" for 4 cores is artificially driven by the NEED of computer chip makers to sell chips. Other than video editing, almost nothing uses 4 cores. It is all smoke, mirrors and hype. An E8600 will do virtually everything a new i7 will for a fraction of the cost. Also, a Mobo to run an E8600 costs a fraction of what the Mobo needed for an i7. Then there's the RAM..................... You get the picture.

Perhaps someday, program writers will design programs to use 4 cores, but then that means quad core processors have to be inexpensive enough for a majority of the computer owners to have one. But by then the 'newest" chip will probably sport 16 cores of which only 4 will ever be used and so on and so on lol.

Heck, you can play most games comfortably on a 3.2GB PentiumIV lol. I know because until last year when I built this system with a (useless overpriced) Quad core, i was playing them.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users