Dual Processor Speed Question

[bigmck]

This is 2.2. per core - that means core1 can do things at the 2.2 speed and core2 can do something else at the 2.2 speed in parallel. You cannot add them up.

This sounds like the same logic as if you divorced your 40 year old wife and got 2 - 20 year olds. You would not be able to do twice as many things, it would just be more fun.

 

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

This is 2.2. per core - that means core1 can do things at the 2.2 speed and core2 can do something else at the 2.2 speed in parallel. You cannot add them up.

This sounds like the same logic as if you divorced your 40 year old wife and got 2 - 20 year olds. You would not be able to do twice as many things, it would just be more fun.

ROFL?
Nice job explaining it.
:roflmao:

 

[websquad]

My desktop is an Intel Q6600-based machine with 8MB RAM running Windows 7/Pro 54-bit. I just ran some experiments with Windows Task Manager > Performance open. I enlarged a grahics image in Photoshop CS5 by a factor of 100 and saw on my #3 monitir that briefly CPU utilization went to 74% ... and all four CPU Usage Histograms spiked up for a few seconds. This older processor has only one thread per core, but it still meets my needs. Often a Norton Windows Security 2010 full scan will crank up and run, or a Mozy backup will run, and I never know it until it is done. I've even been surprised when both were running and I didn't even realize it. I've been very pleased with the Q6600 performance, especially since going to Win 7/64-bit and doubling the RAM.

 

[whs]

There are instances where a quad core can be an advantage. I also see my 4 cores of the Q6600 running at 80% when I save a video with WLMM. But that is the rare case. Generally, only 1 or 2 cores are busy - even with scans. My slightly faster AMD duo core on another system gernerally does just as well.

 

[DeaconFrost]

in the task manger it says iTunes.exe*32, does that mean its 32bit version of itunes?

Exactly.

well, not exactly. It doesn't mean he is running the 32 bit version of iTunes per se, it just means that the actual executable file for iTunes is still a 32-bit app, even though he may have installed the 64 bit version. There is a big difference (not in performance, though) of an x64 native app and an x64 compatible app.

There are instances where a quad core can be an advantage. I also see my 4 cores of the Q6600 running at 80% when I save a video with WLMM. But that is the rare case. Generally, only 1 or 2 cores are busy - even with scans. My slightly faster AMD duo core on another system gernerally does just as well.

One app I have found that really flexes the quad core muscle is Handbrake. I went from a faster dual core (E8400) to a quad (Q9550), and cut my encoding times in half.

 

[Rhammstein]

Surprising some of you see little to no benefit from your quad cores. I saw huge benefits when I went from my old dual core (a very good one) to the 965BE, 925. Although I don't see very much improvement in most apps with the 1090 compared to the 965, but video and games, yes.

Anyway, I saw improvement in almost everything. Most games I run use all 4 cores, except some older single threaded games(Wolfenstein - Enemy Territory for example, uses just one core). Crysis, FSX, L4D1/2, and many more, use each core at 50-80%, FSX can use all 4 of the quad at 100%, and nearly all of the X6, uses all 6, up to around 75%, but uses them all.

I now have only a few single threaded apps, and Windows 7 really helps spread the work load. This go's a long way to prevent pulling the Cpu out of idle. Virus scans, video encoding, gaming, I see great use of multi-core. Only the very old apps and game engines stick to 1 core.

A X6 at this time isn't necessary, I can certainly say that, however a Quad core these days is FAR better than any dual core, on any Win7 machine.

 

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

I love how off topic this thread has gotten.

 

[ken9122]

Part of the Unofficial SF rules- topics must go OT by the 2nd page.

 

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

Part of the Unofficial SF rules- topics must go OT by the 2nd page.

Hahahahaha!
:roflmao: