Partial computer, need fillers.

kookooshortman55

New Member
Right . . . the only problem is that Dual Core is not SLI/Crossfire.

And your math doesn't work.

4.0GHZ x 1 is not greater than 4.0GHz x 2. Or 4 for that matter. Let alone quad gives an increase in the L2 cache size.
 
Last edited:

gamerman4

Active Member
But the percent performance increase is slightly less then SLI/Crossfire slightly less then pathetic.

that is completely different, SLI/Crossfire is pretty much run by the drivers of your gfx card and it really only effects games that take advantage of it. This can also be said about normal programs but you must remember that CPUs ALWAYS have more than 1 thing to do. Also, there is this thing called electromigration, it pretty much dictates how fast we can run a CPU without killing the chip over time. At 5Ghz the electromigration would be so great that CPUs wouldn't last very long and since more and more transistors are getting packed into smaller and smaller CPUs, electromigration is a real threat. Multithreading could be better compared to RAID arrays where the performance benefit is huge, but it still isn't the best analogy. I think you need to get a little more educated about how CPUs work.
 

AUTOBOOT2000

New Member
that is completely different, SLI/Crossfire is pretty much run by the drivers of your gfx card and it really only effects games that take advantage of it. This can also be said about normal programs but you must remember that CPUs ALWAYS have more than 1 thing to do. Also, there is this thing called electromigration, it pretty much dictates how fast we can run a CPU without killing the chip over time. At 5Ghz the electromigration would be so great that CPUs wouldn't last very long and since more and more transistors are getting packed into smaller and smaller CPUs, electromigration is a real threat. Multithreading could be better compared to RAID arrays where the performance benefit is huge, but it still isn't the best analogy. I think you need to get a little more educated about how CPUs work.

I KNOW THAT LOL! I am saying the performance difference is the same 3ghz+3ghz= 3.1ghz performance wise... The performance difference is not that great and like you said with the sli/crossfire same applies with the multiple cores.. the programs I made only use 1 core and I don't plan on editing them just as my old games will never use them. I never had a problem on my pentium 4 3.1ghz. In theory bah bah it's much more efficient I know but when push comes to shove they could make single cores with the same performance and cache at a cheaper price.
 
Last edited:

gamerman4

Active Member
I KNOW THAT LOL! I am saying the performance difference is the same 3ghz+3ghz= 3.1ghz performance wise... The performance difference is not that great and like you said with the sli/crossfire same applies with the multiple cores.. the programs I made only use 1 core and I don't plan on editing them just as my old games will never use them.

wow, the first 4 words you said just proved my point. The only way your argument would have any merit is if you were running a program that runs on a single thread. Here is a test, hit ctrl-alt-del to open your task manager. Go to the processes tab now hit view-select columns... scroll down and check "Threads" hit okay. now go and find some running processes that have 1 thread. You could probably count on your fingers. Probably 1 hand. Also, Intel and AMD couldn't care less about your old games, they look into what is current and almost every program made recently benefits from multi-core CPUs, even firefox and IE.
 
Last edited:

AUTOBOOT2000

New Member
wow, the first 4 words you said just proved my point. The only way your argument would have any merit is if you were running a program that runs on a single thread. Here is a test, hit ctrl-alt-del to open your task manager. Go to the processes tab now hit view-select columns... scroll down and check "Threads" hit okay. now go and find some running processes that have 1 thread. You could probably count on your fingers. Probably 1 hand.

Haha I know I disabled my 2nd core on all my programs just to see if I see a difference and the cpu usage is the same and load times are the same. Only oblivion loads .5 seconds faster and even then I had to edit the game to get it to properly use them... the performance difference is pathetic I want some pretty graphs that prove me wrong! I realize for some main stream producer programs it utilizes it but for common user applications it's useless.
 
Last edited:

gamerman4

Active Member
Haha I know I disabled my 2nd core on all my programs just to see if I see a difference and the cpu usage is the same and load times are the same. Only oblivion loads .5 seconds faster and even then I had to edit the game to get it to properly use them... the performance difference is pathetic I want some pretty graphs that prove me wrong!

Go ahead and play Supreme Commander on one core.
 

kookooshortman55

New Member
Did you ever think that even the fastest processor can't load it instantly? Your hard drive is definitely a limiting factor. Just because the performance of a single is apparently the same as a dual in this case, it doesn't mean that the the dual core was maxed out. If there is no increase in load time, that probably means that you now have a whole second core available to play music while you game etc. and that your HDD is your bottleneck.
 

AUTOBOOT2000

New Member
Did you ever think that even the fastest processor can't load it instantly? Your hard drive is definitely a limiting factor. Just because the performance of a single is apparently the same as a dual in this case, it doesn't mean that the the dual core was maxed out. If there is no increase in load time, that probably means that you now have a whole second core available to play music while you game etc. and that your HDD is your bottleneck.

I have Raid 0, 7200 rpm?
Do I need 10,000 rpm??

Just more proof that the technology is wayyy to far ahead for the average user to have any real increase in performance out of it.
 

kookooshortman55

New Member
10000 RPM would help but, it's still not fast enough to describe the performance impact of the HDD as negligible. 5,000,000 rpm is still not instantaneous, it will always take time to load, so it is not the sole fault of the processor.
 

AUTOBOOT2000

New Member
10000 RPM would help but, it's still not fast enough to describe the performance impact of the HDD as negligible. 5,000,000 rpm is still not instantaneous, it will always take time to load, so it is not the sole fault of the processor.

We are talking about the average user here! (that guys mom *points in random direction*) I blame the processor and his maker!
 

gamerman4

Active Member
I have Raid 0, 7200 rpm?
Do I need 10,000 rpm??

Just more proof that the technology is wayyy to far ahead for the average user to have any real increase in performance out of it.

nope you don't need RAID or 10k RPM
SSD > HDD

Well more and more people do more things with computers. Watching an HD movie is best done with multi-core CPUs, it may not be mainstream now but look at how many people watch DVDs on a computer, it will be like that but for Blu-Ray, even downloaded HD content requires a decent CPU.

Of course if you consider the average user as your grandma, then no, dual core would have no benefit, hell you might as well just dig for a computer with Win95 on it, it types stuff and can surf the web if thats all you really want. People want to do more things and multi-core CPUs are better at doing the things that are becoming mainstream.
 

AUTOBOOT2000

New Member
nope you don't need RAID or 10k RPM
SSD > HDD

Well more and more people do more things with computers. Watching an HD movie is best done with multi-core CPUs, it may not be mainstream now but look at how many people watch DVDs on a computer, it will be like that but for Blu-Ray, even downloaded HD content requires a decent CPU.

Of course if you consider the average user as your grandma, then no, dual core would have no benefit, hell you might as well just dig for a computer with Win95 on it, it types stuff and can surf the web if thats all you really want. People want to do more things and multi-core CPUs are better at doing the things that are becoming mainstream.

SSD *BARFS* you've gone insane... whats next global warming is real??? 15k rpm is faster then SSD. SSD is only good when you want to smash something.
 

gamerman4

Active Member
SSD *BARFS* you've gone insane... whats next global warming is real??? 15k rpm is faster then SSD. SSD is only good when you want to smash something.

Well now that you are talking about HDDs that use an interface that no normal user would ever use and only servers and high-performance computer use. Well hmm....servers and high-perf. computer also use multiple CPUs or multiple cores (or both). SSDs are very useful, the price is the only disadvantage but things always get cheaper.
 

AUTOBOOT2000

New Member
Well now that you are talking about HDDs that use an interface that no normal user would ever use and only servers and high-performance computer use. Well hmm....servers and high-perf. computer also use multiple CPUs or multiple cores (or both). SSDs are very useful, the price is the only disadvantage but things always get cheaper.

I definitly agree with you that SSD has a great future but hard drives will always be better.

Global warming has nothing to do with a processor. Well I suppose a CPU at 5GHz could contribute to it.

it just snowed in august somebody must have turned there computer off.
 
Top