Dual core = useless with some programs?

[audiobahn1000]

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-core_(computing)

"most current (as of 2006) video games will run faster on a 3 GHz single-core processor than on a 2GHz dual-core processor (of the same core architecture), despite the dual-core theoretically having more processing power, because they are incapable of efficiently using more than one core at a time."


I found that statement on Wikipedia. Does this mean that a software program must be designed to use a dual core CPU to use both CPU cores? That is, if its not designed to use both cores only one core will be used?

 

[kof2000]

1. it is outdated.
2. benchmarks don't lie.

 

[hermeslyre]

You didn't answer his question Kof.

Yes, Games and applications have to be designed to take advantage of Multi-core processors.

 

[Impulse666]

but dual core is nice when you're running two intensive applications that only use one core each. thats where you double productivity.

 

[Geoff]

That is true for the most part, since alot of games are only single threaded and the ones that are multi threaded, dont take full advantage of both cores.

Thats why you will see that the X6800 performs better in all games then the Q6600 for instance.

 

[rbxslvr]

Generally, you have more than one processing thread running at a time... therefore it would make your entire computer run faster, but with games it wouldn't be really super-speed, unless some of the processing load was taken off of core #2.

Well, really, I don't know what I'm talking about. I'm pretty sure what I said makes sense

 

[Geoff]

Generally, you have more than one processing thread running at a time... therefore it would make your entire computer run faster, but with games it wouldn't be really super-speed, unless some of the processing load was taken off of core #2.

Well, really, I don't know what I'm talking about. I'm pretty sure what I said makes sense

It does make sense, and it's true, there are lots of processes/tasks going on all the time. Usually anywhere between 30-60 different things under Windows XP, but for the most part, all of those processes dont take up much processing power. Now if you were say, scanning for viruses and playing Counter Strike at the same time, you would notice a huge difference with a dual/quad core.

 

[audiobahn1000]

It does make sense, and it's true, there are lots of processes/tasks going on all the time. Usually anywhere between 30-60 different things under Windows XP, but for the most part, all of those processes dont take up much processing power. Now if you were say, scanning for viruses and playing Counter Strike at the same time, you would notice a huge difference with a dual/quad core.

But would Windows Vista automatically see that you have two CPU intrusive programs open and assign one to one core and the other to the other core?

If so then why doesen't Windows Vista simply "parallel" the cores and direct half of the load to one core and the other half to the other core so both cores will be processing exactly half of the workload thus theoretically cutting processing time in half; if the programs running not designed to use dual cores? Like if you had two completely separate CPU's in one motherboard.

 

[Geoff]

But would Windows Vista automatically see that you have two CPU intrusive programs open and assign one to one core and the other to the other core?

If so then why doesen't Windows Vista simply "parallel" the cores and direct half of the load to one core and the other half to the other core so both cores will be processing exactly half of the workload thus theoretically cutting processing time in half; if the programs running not designed to use dual cores? Like if you had two completely separate CPU's in one motherboard.

Both XP and Vista do that (Vista does it better though).

But what you will find is that if you play a game and dont have anything else major running in the background, the game will be taking up close to 100% of one core, while the rest of the processes are moved to the second core, but it may only take up 5-10%. The OS can't take a single thread and split it up between cores, as some people thought AMD was doing.