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

Duo Core and Triple Core


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 UpgradeMe

UpgradeMe

  • Members
  • 125 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA
  • Local time:12:56 AM

Posted 28 June 2010 - 06:18 PM

I'm beginning to consider new machines, and I've never owned multi-core. I have some questions. If I were to run XP, would it make use of two cores? How about three? Also what about other programs? It would be nice to hear from some experienced owners how well duo, triple, and quad core processors interact with various types of programs. One last example off the top of my head...Defraggler (defragmenting tool). Defrag in the background might not seem like much, but it makes a difference that it's running when it's on on the P4 I have, right now. Also, FBackup. Can't remember where, but I remember reading somewhere that some or many programs won't even use mult-core. Sorry if I'm coming across as ignorant...I am!

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 YHB318

YHB318

  • Members
  • 165 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlotte, NC
  • Local time:01:56 AM

Posted 28 June 2010 - 08:03 PM

Multiple core processors are great! Windows XP can take advantage of these processors very well, so if you're looking to upgrade, you will definitely notice a difference. One thing that a lot of people forget is that the processor isn't always the slowest part of the computer. Things like Defraggler and Backup programs are going to be relying mostly on the hard drive, and so the processor won't make a big difference. Just about everything else can take advantage of multiple cores - like 2 different programs open at the same time. Most games can use at least 2 cores, and video/audio editing programs (iTunes, Adobe, etc.) will use more.

Here's a good write-up: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/quad-c...tem,1870-2.html It's an oldie, but a goodie...

Edited by YHB318, 28 June 2010 - 08:03 PM.


#3 UpgradeMe

UpgradeMe
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 125 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA
  • Local time:12:56 AM

Posted 29 June 2010 - 12:27 AM

Very cool article. That was exactly the type of thing I was hoping to find.

I read somewhere that some programs do not make use of multiple cores well or at all. It went on to say that the result could be similar performance at times to the pentium 4. I should have probably made better note of the source and of the date of those comments. Probably some babble from a message board in the early days of the quad core.

Edited by UpgradeMe, 29 June 2010 - 06:39 AM.


#4 the_patriot11

the_patriot11

    High Tech Redneck


  • BC Advisor
  • 6,755 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wyoming USA
  • Local time:10:56 PM

Posted 29 June 2010 - 02:03 AM

That is true, some programs will not use a multiple core CPU, however, XP in itself, is a very reliable OS, in fact in most studies have shown, that xp professional has outperformed both Vista and 7 (barely) in everything but gaming performance. I still use XP myself on some of my computers. If you have a program that will make use of multiple cores that will run on XP it will run just fine. Even with programs that are only made for single core, they also will run better simply because the architecture is better. I Have had the chance to compare a 3 ghz pentium 4 (single core) with a 3 ghz pentium D (dual core) and a 3 ghz AMD athlon x2, and have noted, even with programs that use a single core, both dual cores outperformed the single, and the athlon outperformed the pentium D, simply because the architecture was better. And most programs these days are designed to run on a multi core system, so it would be a very wise investment.

picard5.jpg

 

Primary system: Motherboard: ASUS M4A89GTD PRO/USB3, Processor: AMD Phenom II x4 945, Memory: 16 gigs of Patriot G2 DDR3 1600, Video: AMD Sapphire Nitro R9 380, Storage: 1 WD 500 gig HD, 1 Hitachi 500 gig HD, and Power supply: Coolermaster 750 watt, OS: Windows 10 64 bit. 

Media Center: Motherboard: Gigabyte mp61p-S3, Processor: AMD Athlon 64 x2 6000+, Memory: 6 gigs Patriot DDR2 800, Video: Gigabyte GeForce GT730, Storage: 500 gig Hitachi, PSU: Seasonic M1211 620W full modular, OS: Windows 10.

If I don't reply within 24 hours of your reply, feel free to send me a pm.


#5 YHB318

YHB318

  • Members
  • 165 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlotte, NC
  • Local time:01:56 AM

Posted 29 June 2010 - 09:40 PM

I purchased a dual core almost 2 years ago that was the cheapest Intel I could find (Celeron E1400, socket 775) - got it for $49 new. I was coming from a P4 3.06GHz with HyperThreading, and the only CPU intensive program I run is my video editing (Sony Vegas). The E1400 runs at 2.0GHz, but encoded my videos about 40% faster than the P4. I couldn't believe how much difference the 2nd core made. When I overclocked the same CPU to 3.0GHz I got another 30%-40% increase in speed. Like Patriot09 said, the architecture is better, and much more efficient, so things like overclocking also get easier. I had originally planned to upgrade to a quad core (specifically the Q9650) but I'm not editing much video anymore so I make do with the Celeron. I just got another Celeron (this time the E3300) for an HTPC project that I'm working on (as money comes in)...

Edited by YHB318, 29 June 2010 - 09:43 PM.


#6 UpgradeMe

UpgradeMe
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 125 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA
  • Local time:12:56 AM

Posted 30 June 2010 - 06:51 AM

I have looked at both duo and triple cores. I have a pretty meager budget, and I must have 2 HDs, since I'll be selling my current computer, so I will probably go with a duo core even though it doesn't rate anywhere near the triple core. The machine I like is a HP DC7700 with a 2.13 GHz duo core (Intel). The one I could get has 2 HDs (160GB each) and 4 GBs already, so I can focus on upgrading the processor. There is a 2.67 GHz version for this machine that benchmarks alot better. It's pretty expensive, and I think a little rare, but that would certainly get me by. This is obviously a used machine, but it's in great shape and the cost is right for me, right now. I was looking at a triple core, but it sold.

Edited by UpgradeMe, 30 June 2010 - 06:53 AM.


#7 the_patriot11

the_patriot11

    High Tech Redneck


  • BC Advisor
  • 6,755 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wyoming USA
  • Local time:10:56 PM

Posted 30 June 2010 - 07:47 AM

You could do that, if your doing a lot of CPU intensive programs, you may be better off spending the money on the 2.67 ghz one. Me personally, with my desktops, these days if Im looking for a CPU I shoot for the 3 ghz range or as close to it as I can-as you can see in my signature, both of my desktops are running 3 ghz Duo cores, one intel, one AMD. My laptop is only a 1.8 ghz single Core, but I dont use the laptop for anything more then web surfing and movie watching so its not really needed. But again, it depends on what your aiming for. If you dont do a lot of CPU intensive stuff, going with the slower one would probably work for ya.

picard5.jpg

 

Primary system: Motherboard: ASUS M4A89GTD PRO/USB3, Processor: AMD Phenom II x4 945, Memory: 16 gigs of Patriot G2 DDR3 1600, Video: AMD Sapphire Nitro R9 380, Storage: 1 WD 500 gig HD, 1 Hitachi 500 gig HD, and Power supply: Coolermaster 750 watt, OS: Windows 10 64 bit. 

Media Center: Motherboard: Gigabyte mp61p-S3, Processor: AMD Athlon 64 x2 6000+, Memory: 6 gigs Patriot DDR2 800, Video: Gigabyte GeForce GT730, Storage: 500 gig Hitachi, PSU: Seasonic M1211 620W full modular, OS: Windows 10.

If I don't reply within 24 hours of your reply, feel free to send me a pm.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users