Quad-core processors are out!

[polobunny]

Originally Posted by screwballl

750GB WD hd?
biggest I saw at newegg was 500GB... WD must be either rebranding the perp drives or making them for OEM only now for the holidays then they will be available closer to or after Christmas for the rest of us

If you check wdc.com, there's no mention of 750GB anywhere. I mean, the place is big but not THAT big, so I think they're probably just making dynamic disks in Windows or something like that.

[whitecree]

Originally Posted by Jokerswild

Most people that use a computer from what I've seen have no use for dual core even. Most are used at work for office and internet or at home for basically the same thing. Checking e-mail doing some online banking or shopping and maybe playing solitare or some other non graphic intensive games.

Heck, most people don't even require a P3, never mind 'lastest & greatest'. One fella I know who watches what is going on is all excited about the quad-cores. "Imagine how fast I can lay out a solitaire hand with one of those babies!"

Oi.

[fps justin]

Originally Posted by polobunny

I guess. This morning when I checked the newspaper I saw an ad for computers. All their stuff seemed fine looking, except they were giving you rebates over rebates, a multi-function printer scanner, a free upgrade to a 250GB HDD on some computers, a free upgrade to Windows Media Center 2005, a free upgrade to a 22inch instead of a 20, a free 6MP digital camera and tons of other stuff.
Now, normal people might think "GREAT they're giving out free stuff", but all I saw in this was an overpriced machine from the start.
And only to mess even more the normal consumer they were stating random specs. Thing like:
ATI Radeon 512mb HM video card express with SmartShader™, Hyper Z™ III, VideoShader™ (anyone noticed you have no idea what the chip on the card is? :P Could be X600, X1300 or anything else)
22inch widescreen 1650x1080 WSXGA
EnergyStar monitor LCD, 2+3ms video response time and 700:1 contrast ratio (again, no brand or model)
750GB WesternDigital silent SATA2 hard drive with fast 7200rpm (because there's probably "a slow 7200rpm model". I wasn't even aware WD had 750GB...looks like i'm falling behind)

Sigh, that's what we gotta fight everyday, trying to tell consumers they're getting ripped off when they go buy at those places.

512 of Hyper Memory, sounds like a x1300pro.

[jph1589]

Originally Posted by jph1589

When I ran my exact same video processing that I am running now on a Celeron D, it used to suck up 95 percent of the cpu and take hours.

When I ran it on my 520J Hyper threading, it took up 95 percent of both virtual cores and took a few less hours.

When I run it on my 920 dual core, it takes up 95 percent of both cores and takes a little over an hour.

Now the only thing that changed was the motherboard and cpu. The software is all identical from the operating system to the application. The application doesn't care if it is single core, hyperthreaded, or dual core. Windows manages all of that as far as I know.


So if I were inclinced to P--- away a load of cash on a quad core, I am under the impression that Windows would manage the distribution of the process amongst all 4 cores just as it has in the past?

I'm not going to buy a quad core anytime soon but I kinda hope somebody does. If they don't the prices on the C2D's won't drop much further. I've never paid more than $90 for a cpu and I don't really plan to change that ! LOL

Can anyone clear up or validate my impression of how windows manages the cores?

Can we get a discussion going on this? I'm not sure I buy the idea that applications had to be rewritten to take advantage of hyperthreading.

I have apps that were written before dual cores came out and they clearly use both cores. Am I wrong that windows manages that?

Assuming I'm right, why is it that I hear about games that only use one core?

Can someone clear this up?

[DeanOlicious]

This months Maximum PC has a great article about the Intel quad, if you guys are interested I'll dig it up and type out some of the highlights.

[gvblake22]

Originally Posted by jph1589

Can anyone clear up or validate my impression of how windows manages the cores?

I don't know all the ins and outs of the whole thing, but this is how I look at it:

Think of it kindof like a person. The core body and brain of the person could be the operating system (Windows XP in this case) and the person's arms as being the processing cores. Windows (the brain) can handle (control) two arms at once and independantly move (control) each one. Then think of a black box as applications or processes. These black boxes have hand holes in it that could be thought of as it being single or mutli-threaded; one hand hole is single threaded (can only use one hand or processor core at a time) and two holed black boxes (multi-threaded apps) allow you (the operating system) to use two hands at one time (one in each hand hole).

If the person has one arm (a single core processor), the tasks are relatively simple to line up and perform and will work at a given speed regardless of how many holes are on the black box because there is only one arm and hand available to put into the black box (application).

So with black boxes (applications) that have two hand holes will allow you to use both hands to work on it (thus getting more work done). But if you are a person with two arms and hands (dual core processor) but are faced with a bunch of black boxes with only one hand hole per box (a bunch of single threaded applications), then you can use both hands independently to work on two single holed boxes at once.

As for your video processing going faster with the dual core processor, all I can say is that either

• a) the process was completed faster because there were more resources available to run the video processing because the background processes were being run more efficiently on the spare resources.
• b) the video processing you were doing was actually somehow a multi-threaded application and we don't know it. Remember, dual processor setups have been around for quite a long time whereas dual core processors are fairly young (comparitively speaking).

[duckingzebra]

Originally Posted by gvblake22

I don't know all the ins and outs of the whole thing, but this is how I look at it:

Think of it kindof like a person. The core body and brain of the person could be the operating system (Windows XP in this case) and the person's arms as being the processing cores. Windows (the brain) can handle (control) two arms at once and independantly move (control) each one. Then think of a black box as applications or processes. These black boxes have hand holes in it that could be thought of as it being single or mutli-threaded; one hand hole is single threaded (can only use one hand or processor core at a time) and two holed black boxes (multi-threaded apps) allow you (the operating system) to use two hands at one time (one in each hand hole).

If the person has one arm (a single core processor), the tasks are relatively simple to line up and perform and will work at a given speed regardless of how many holes are on the black box because there is only one arm and hand available to put into the black box (application).

So with black boxes (applications) that have two hand holes will allow you to use both hands to work on it (thus getting more work done). But if you are a person with two arms and hands (dual core processor) but are faced with a bunch of black boxes with only one hand hole per box (a bunch of single threaded applications), then you can use both hands independently to work on two single holed boxes at once.

As for your video processing going faster with the dual core processor, all I can say is that either

• a) the process was completed faster because there were more resources available to run the video processing because the background processes were being run more efficiently on the spare resources.
• b) the video processing you were doing was actually somehow a multi-threaded application and we don't know it. Remember, dual processor setups have been around for quite a long time whereas dual core processors are fairly young (comparitively speaking).

lol nice analogy

[jph1589]

Originally Posted by duckingzebra

lol nice analogy

I got a headache reading that LOL Was right in the middle of that memory divider discussion though......I couldnt' handle both.

[duckingzebra]

lol i dont get any of it, lol( the divider stuff) i got the analogy though, nj

[screwballl]

If the program within windows can only use one core, thats all it will use, but you can change the affinity so it uses the second core. You can run 2 single threaded applications (say video encoding on #2 and gaming on #1) without any slowdown relating to the processor. You can run a multi-threaded application that uses both cores to double the speed of the program's purpose.
For people that know a little bit about automotive usage:
The engine gives power to the wheels (cpu). Depending on the need, it may only use one wheel to move the vehicle or it may use 2 or 4 (depending on the number of cores). For normal use, it may only use one wheel. When it comes to pulling, it may kick in the second wheel for more power. If there is the need on a system that has it, it may kick in all 4 for pulling. Thus the job gets easier and faster the more wheels you have pulling the load. For typical every day driving not under load, only one will be used for that purpose until more are needed.