Why You're Not Getting Your Money's Worth....

[Elysium]

Yeah, well, I though I would just throw in that little thing about the Celerons because they are single core and they do have a Conroe core, however handicapped they are. And because you said they are no single core Core2's........... I was proving a point.

I do agree with you though, dual and quad core is the way forward. Single core = bad choice for the money.

[Telexen]

Originally Posted by gvblake22

There's a lot of room for argument either way on this subject. First, let me start by saying that hardware technology has always outpaced software. I cannot think of a single instance when there was new software available that had a special feature that didn't yet exist somewhere in the computer hardware.

When it comes to the "multitasking" argument, it could easily go both ways. Let's say for example you have a dual core processor and you want to run two single threaded apps. Theoretically each application will use nearly all of one core (about 50% of the processing power). Suppose it takes the dual core processor 1 minute to complete the two tasks.

Now think that you have that same dual core processor but it now runs the same two tasks that have been patched for multi-threaded operation. Again (theoretically) assuming you start both tasks at the same time, each task will use all of the CPU's processing power (about 100%) and complete the task even faster. For simplicity's sake, lets say the same single task takes 30 seconds instead of 1 minute. But given that the processor has to finish the first task, then start on the second because each task now uses 100% of the processor, it will still take about 1 minute to complete both tasks.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it essentially "six one, half-dozen another"? Meaning the two tasks are still completed in the same amount of TOTAL time whether they are multi-threaded or not?

In the theory of this particular example - you're exactly correct.

Aside assuming a lot of basic things (that the CPU scheduler handles such processing correctly of multiple threads to begin with - this has been a problem with Windows), the single threaded application may in a lot of circumstances not be able to provide additional work for the second core. They lack parallelism.

I'll provide an example here.

I run Gentoo Linux. Gentoo is known as a source-based distribution where all my applications are self compiled. There are some packages in Gentoo's package manager - Portage - that because of the way they're built, they cannot have multiple threads compiling the source at the same time because some may depend on others. So in these instances, Portage forces a single thread to compile the entire package. With these packages - I can tell you from experience that my old AthlonXP 2600+ compiles some faster than my quad-core Opteron 265 system.

But with most packages, I do use all 4 cores and my compile times are much better.

So the problem is programmers doing things right, and not being lazy.

[One4yu2c]

Originally Posted by yellowhello

And because you said they are no single core Core2's........... I was proving a point.

I said that the architectural advantages of the C2D series aren't present in any single core parts, which was referring to competitive mainstream processors, but for the sake of off-topic argument, is still true on the extreme low end (which is outside the article's scope and argument) - Core architecture is there, advantages are not (gimped from a GHz, FSB, and L2 Cache perspective, among some other negligible areas).

But yes YellowHello, there does exist a Celeron-L line. Here be your half eaten, underbaked cookie with the chocolate chips picked out...

EDIT: To clarify in case it's still not clear, there exists no single-core counterpart to the C2D that is equal in every way, save for the additional core. Because of this, the debate between single vs dual is largely moot, and better served by discussing the benefits (or lack thereof) of dual vs quad.

[Elysium]

Originally Posted by One4yu2c

But yes YellowHello, there does exist a Celeron-L line. Here be your half eaten, underbaked cookie with the chocolate chips picked out...

Ah, thanks Paul! How generous you are! Yummy!

[gvblake22]

Originally Posted by One4yu2c

No, multi-tasking is noticeably smoother on a dual (or quad) core machine, than one equipped with a single core CPU. Whereas it's fairly easy to bring a single core machine to its knees (heavy video encoding, etc), the extra cores keep the system from getting bogged down, freeing the user to focus on other tasks.

But again, it's a dying argument, as single core processors are quickly being phased out, and the architectural advantages of the C2D series aren't present in any single core parts. A perspective one could argue is that you're buying a faster processor, and getting an additional core to boot. The single vs dual core debate was much more applicable about two years ago, when the s939 X2 procs first hit the scene. For the same debate to take place today, it'd make more sense to discuss dual for quad core parts.

I was having a hard time wording what I was trying to say, so I think you mis-understood my post. I wasn't arguing the single core vs dual core, I was arguing single thread vs. multi thread. Basically I was trying to say (ask) that if in a purely multitasking oriented environment, multi core processors may actually perform numerous single threaded tasks in the same overall time as multi-threaded apps. But again, this only holds true when running the same amount of concurrent tasks as you have processing cores (like two simultaneous tasks on a dual core processor or four tasks on a quad core). Follow?