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

Dual Core Cpu's Not Needed Or Cant Be Used Because Of Software?


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 cowsgonemadd3

cowsgonemadd3

    Feed me some spyware!


  • Banned
  • 4,557 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:04:30 AM

Posted 28 November 2006 - 12:53 AM

I read that getting a dual core cpu is about pointless unless you have programs that need it. Like most programs wont even use both cores so having a dual core does not mean that you are going to go twice as fast as most things dont even work with it.

Like you would be better off with a fast single core.

Is this true? If so why all the buzz about dual cores?

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 Mr Alpha

Mr Alpha

  • Members
  • 1,875 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Finland
  • Local time:11:30 AM

Posted 28 November 2006 - 11:15 AM

No, not true. It used to be that way, but things are changing. There are programs, mostly any decent encoding software, that has had multi-core support for some time already. Other programs are getting there, like the latest WinRAR and Office 2007. Then there is the whole gaming side of the coin. 2007 will be the year of the multi-core revolution in gaming. The Doom 3 Engine already has dual-core support. Valve is updating the Source engine to support multi-core. Unreal Engine 3.0 has multi-core support. Most games coming out from here on will support multi-core, and there are even some (Alan Wake) that require dual-cores. DirectX 10 makes use of multi-core.

I haven't even touched upon the other use of dual-cores: multitasking, which is running several programs at once. If you've had a look in the task manager lately, you'll know you are doing it. The most noteworthy situation is when you are running two CPU intensive programs at once. Like using VoIP while playing a multi-player game, or just playing MP3's instead of the games own music. Doing other thing while running virus or other malware scans. Checking email, surfing, working with a couple office applications, and having all your security software running in the background.

When upgrading from my socket A system a couple of years ago I was wondering if dual-core was the right way to go. I am an multitasking fanatic but I could get a faster single-core for gaming instead. The dual-core was the right choice. The only reason I notice the anti-virus is scanning is because programs take longer to load, thanks to the hard-drive being a bottle neck.

I maybe should add that to multitask you need a lot of memory as well.

Oh, and then there is the thing that nowadays you can't get a fast single-core anymore. All mid- to high-end processors are dual-core (except the quad-core).
"Anyone who cannot form a community with others, or who does not need to because he is self-sufficient [...] is either a beast or a god." Aristotle
Intel Core 2 Quad | XFX 780i SLI | 8GB Corsair | Gigabyte GeForce 8800GTX | Auzentech X-Fi Prelude| Logitech G15 | Logitech MX Revolution | LG Flatron L2000C | Logitech Z-5500 Digital

#3 cowsgonemadd3

cowsgonemadd3

    Feed me some spyware!

  • Topic Starter

  • Banned
  • 4,557 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:04:30 AM

Posted 28 November 2006 - 12:43 PM

Yeah the biggest AMD makes for single core is the AMD 4000. I wanted to upgrade my laptop's cpu to a dual or single core. I am not sure my laptop can use a dual core. I will have to go get the newest bios and see.

Would a fx-57 compare to a dual core at the same speed? I mean those fx chips are fast fast fast.

So windows can use the cpu to multitask?
I also do several things at once and sometimes it gets a little slow with my AMD 3200 chip. I mean its fast. It benchmarks more than the Intels 3.2ghz and it runs at 2.0ghz. But the new AMD ones are way faster. I can get a AMD 5000 dual core for pretty cheap.

#4 Mr Alpha

Mr Alpha

  • Members
  • 1,875 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Finland
  • Local time:11:30 AM

Posted 28 November 2006 - 04:53 PM

The Athlon FX-57 is about 3-5% faster than the Athlon X2 5000+ in single threaded situations. When you multitask or use multi-threaded programs the Athlon X2 5000+ would be faster (up to 80% faster in best case scenarios).
"Anyone who cannot form a community with others, or who does not need to because he is self-sufficient [...] is either a beast or a god." Aristotle
Intel Core 2 Quad | XFX 780i SLI | 8GB Corsair | Gigabyte GeForce 8800GTX | Auzentech X-Fi Prelude| Logitech G15 | Logitech MX Revolution | LG Flatron L2000C | Logitech Z-5500 Digital

#5 cowsgonemadd3

cowsgonemadd3

    Feed me some spyware!

  • Topic Starter

  • Banned
  • 4,557 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:04:30 AM

Posted 28 November 2006 - 05:30 PM

Well I was just debating on whether to upgrade my laptop like if it cant hold a dual core to a fx model cpu or trade it off and get a newer one with a dual core amd chip.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users