Are there any real differences between the single core and the multicore processors? Both of them seem to work at the same speed for the same added processing power, in fact the dual-core processors actually seem slower when multitasking little things like music + word processing. Any comments from you geniuses out there?
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Well I'm far from a genius when it comes to hardware, but I can honestly say that I've had noticeably large leaps in performance when moving from a Athlon 64 Single Core 2.0ghz, up to an Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 2.0ghz. Especially with application load games and game performance. In order to take advantage of the second core though, you'll need Windows XP Professional, Windows XP Home edition treats the second core like a second processor and ignores it.
Also, in things such as rendering Mental Ray, I get 2 slots being rendered at the same time as opposed to just 1, cutting my render times in half at least. MMF2 games also run at a much higher frame rate too. So yeah, noticeably faster in my opinion, anyone else agree?
Oh yea, the Core 2 Duo's (and Core 2 Quads) are friggin insane. Such low power usage too, performance per watt is unbelievable and walks over anything the competition has, even the Cell for personal use.
I don't know about them slowing down during smaller tasks. I've noticed both OS's I use have different results - XP won't feel the speed boost until you're using big applications and games. OSX is better at "syndicating" (for a better word) processes per core for heavy work, I can be rendering a 1080p video and easily watch an encoded and upscaled digital TV stream or be working in Photoshop.
Argh not AlienWare... they're such a rip-off. All they do is a bit of unneccesary heat-dissipation, some plastic casing, and desktop themes at - wait for it - a MASSIVELY unreasonable price! WOO!
Anyways, yeah I've got a Q6600 (Intel - Quad core @ 2.4ghz) overclocked to 3.12ghz at the moment. I do a LOT of things besides run Vista 64bit at one time on my pc. This may include Photoshop, Dreamweaver, WMP, and MMF open whilst playing CoD or something.
The power in these things is crazy, but the only draw-back is, that no (particulary useful) programs etc. take advantage of the four cores, though you CAN spread the work load in Vista. Quad is better than Duo, but not very noticeable due to that fact - yet.
But the difference between core2duo and pentium 4's etc is marginal, so multicore is definitely a step in the right direction. Especially for eating benchmarks
Yea @ Alienware. And people call Macs expensive . I didn't know people bought Alienware anymore, since us Brits either buy crappy ALDI computers or get mega expensive ones from local computer shops or just homebuilds. Just thought it was an American lazy thing.
I can afford it, so what's the problem? Last time I built a PC from components it was shit and overheated all the time, so I'm not trusting myself or my friend's advice again. I want a good gaming machine prebuilt, I did the research, looked at reviews and the one I chose sounds like the one for me. And I like pretty lights.
I think the point is you could have built, or just bought from a shop, a much more powerful system/long term investment for the same price. Still your choice and that and I hope you enjoy your system.
Thanks. Anyway, I hate buying from PC shops cos they always scrimp on graphics cards, which is something important to me, and they're not designed for upgrading, which the Alienware one is, and like I say I'm put off from building one cos of the last one being rubbish.
Anyways, back to the wonder of multicore processors...
Yeah, for about the same price as the cheapest AlienWare machine you can build a computer almost as good as mine... and I even have water cooling ... but yeah if you have the money then ah well
Ive noticed a massive increase in performance between my old pc (pentium 4 3ghz) and my new pc (Core2duo 2.6 ghz)
However since ive bought a whole new pc rather than simply upraded the processor it's hard to say how much is the processor alone.
The only thing ive really tested on this new pc is the game oblivion. It runs at a minimum of 60fps at the highest possible settings (although it jumps around quite a lot so it's not entirely smooth)
My old pc struggled to get above 20fps
still... like i said before the processor isn't the only thing affecting performance.
I meant the Core2 duo on my friend's laptop was bad at multitasking . Er, a dual core tends to cost double the same processing rate as a single core, which is why I'd expect them to be double the speed, but they're usually not. And fresh pcs also tend to be much faster than an old one, even if it has half the specs, sometimes you get the same from a freshly formatted old comp.
But yeah, I guess you have to try it to see. I've always just found that all my friends who have core duos tend to have games that run as slowly as most other processors. Maybe I'll wait for them to get all the bugs fixed out, like in the original Pentium 4.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Game performance is mostly determined by the power of the Graphics Card, not the processor. (Unless they're click game)
As far as Labtops are concerned, Duel core uses more power and generate more heat than single, which is not optimal for mobility.
-
DaVince This fool just HAD to have a custom rating
Registered 04/09/2004
Points 7998
10th August, 2007 at 10:04:46 -
"Game performance is mostly determined by the power of the Graphics Card, not the processor."
This is only true for games that need hardware acceleration of any kind to improve performance. Most older don't need the extra processing power.
Old member (~2004-2007).
Deleted User
10th August, 2007 at 10:32:57 -
Duel core uses more power and generate more heat than single
You made that up.
Pentium 4 TDP: Up to 100W
Core 2 Duo TDP: Up to 65W
Phizzy's right, dual core use less power and thus (usually less heat), and now that the G0 chips are released there is even more of a difference between the two. Two is better than one - Four is better than two, as far as CPU's go anyway.
""Game performance is mostly determined by the power of the Graphics Card, not the processor."
This is only true for games that need hardware acceleration of any kind to improve performance. Most older don't need the extra processing power."
You also have to consider that a processor can bottleneck a graphics card. If you have a slow processor and an amazing graphics card, you will reach a frame cap, no matter what resolution you're on or how high the graphics get.
LOL, Core2 uses much less power than P4, that's why they like to stick it on laptops. Though it only tends to use less power when you're running a low processing program like MS Word. You can't say the AMD processors use less power than the P4 either .
I've got a good graphics card and an OK processor/RAM. It runs some games great on full power (eg. NFS Underground 2 with full 4X antialiasing) but slows badly on some other games like The Sims 2 and Civ4 (late in the game)
Edited by an Administrator.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Advertisement
Post Reply
Edited by the Author.
. I didn't know people bought Alienware anymore, since us Brits either buy crappy ALDI computers or get mega expensive ones from local computer shops or just homebuilds. Just thought it was an American lazy thing.
