What is a multicore processor?

E

EINREB

Member
Sorry guys, but I have to ask. What exactly is a multicore processor? Better asked, what does it do better than a single core? I have heard that multicore processors are only good for programs that were written specially for those kind of processors, older programs are not able to use the additional cores, and thus the processor is an overkill for them.
I went by the advice I got in the store when I build my computer a year ago, and went with an AMD Phenom II x4, which I understand has 4 cores. My requirements are somewhat simple, just general computing, Internet, etc. I do not do any gaming, but like to do simple video editing.
Did I overbuy with the Phenom?
 
No you did not overbuy, multi-core processors are the new standard and everybody should really have them these days.

Older programs can sometimes benefit from multi-cores, so you didn't overbuy at all. If you like to do video editing then yeah a multi-core is what you needed. :)

A multi-core processor is almost like multiple processors in one chip, for example, a quad-core is like 4 processors in a single chip, a dual-core 2 processors, a hex-core 6 processors and so on.
 
spirit said:
A multi-core processor is almost like multiple processors in one chip, for example, a quad-core is like 4 processors in a single chip, a dual-core 2 processors, a hex-core 6 processors and so on.
Click to expand...

I understand that, but it still does not answer my fundemental question, what does it better than a single core CPU? I don't seem to notice much difference in daily general use between my old single core and my new 4 core system. Where (in which application) would I be able to see a difference between the two and in what respect?
 
Single core processors now are just installed on pretty lowend computers. Most all programs now use atleast 2 cores/threads. But like you say, there will not be much difference in using like the Internet or like you say daily general use. But believe me you are better off with a Phenom X4 then something like a single core Sempron.

Look up some benchmarks with the single core Sempron vs. even a dual core much less a 4/6/8 core.
 
EINREB said:
I understand that, but it still does not answer my fundemental question, what does it better than a single core CPU? I don't seem to notice much difference in daily general use between my old single core and my new 4 core system. Where (in which application) would I be able to see a difference between the two and in what respect?
Click to expand...

The difference is obvious. Which is better, one horse pulling a carriage? or 4 horses? .

The reason why it doesn't seem to make much of a difference, because old software doesn't know how to use all 4, and it either uses only one, either uses one by one. The real difference is with the new games/software, where, well, it can run theoretically, 4 times as faster. And also, as the user above me intelligently pointed out, In day to day use, you don't use 100% even from a single processor. Still it's almost imperative to buy an multi processor computer, because it will very soon be a standard, and any new software will run terribly on single core.
 
ayan said:
The difference is obvious. Which is better, one horse pulling a carriage? or 4 horses? .

The reason why it doesn't seem to make much of a difference, because old software doesn't know how to use all 4, and it either uses only one, either uses one by one. The real difference is with the new games/software, where, well, it can run theoretically, 4 times as faster. And also, as the user above me intelligently pointed out, In day to day use, you don't use 100% even from a single processor. Still it's almost imperative to buy an multi processor computer, because it will very soon be a standard, and any new software will run terribly on single core.
Click to expand...

Soon? Im pretty sure its already the standard. I actually have not seen a single core processor in production since the Core i series came out.
 
It would be behind a 3.2GHz netburst I think. Don't know how many compares you will see of teh two.
It does not have HT because it is classified as a "top end" CPU feature, and celerons have never had top end features. Personally, I think its worth the extra $10 to get the G530 and dual core. It ties with a C2D @ 3GHz.
 
wolfeking said:
It would be behind a 3.2GHz netburst I think. Don't know how many compares you will see of teh two.
It does not have HT because it is classified as a "top end" CPU feature, and celerons have never had top end features. Personally, I think its worth the extra $10 to get the G530 and dual core. It ties with a C2D @ 3GHz.
Click to expand...

the i3 is HT'd and it's not really a top end, but it is a high production chip and to actually beat or compete with phenom ii's it needs that edge, since the other option is jumping straight to the i5's which are way better, or they could lock a core but then they'd lose purchases of i5's from people wanting to unlock
 
EINREB said:
I understand that, but it still does not answer my fundemental question, what does it better than a single core CPU? I don't seem to notice much difference in daily general use between my old single core and my new 4 core system. Where (in which application) would I be able to see a difference between the two and in what respect?
Click to expand...

As mentioned above, you won't notice all that much difference when doing day to day stuff, but trying rendering or video/photo editing or archiving files on a single core - takes a while doesn't it? Now try it on your quad-core, should be a heck of a lot faster. Basically in multi-threaded applications the quad-core will run over the single core and some.
 
ayan said:
Still it's almost imperative to buy an multi processor computer, because it will very soon be a standard, and any new software will run terribly on single core.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the answer and good explanation of what multiple cores are about.
With prices of processors with multiple cores, it is almost silly not to buy one if you are upgrading anyway. In my case the salesman thought that, after listening to me what I use a computer for, it was not necessary to buy one with more cores than 4, and I think he was right.
Since I am mainly running XP, I wonder if they will ever come up with new multicore software for that OS in the future anyway, they will be going to concentrate on later versions of Windows. It will be different when I run 7 or the new 8, I guess, and then the multi cores will hopefully help.

QUOTE from spirit -As mentioned above, you won't notice all that much difference when doing day to day stuff, but trying rendering or video/photo editing or archiving files on a single core - takes a while doesn't it? Now try it on your quad-core, should be a heck of a lot faster. Basically in multi-threaded applications the quad-core will run over the single core and some. END QUOTE

Yes, it does take a l-o-o-o-ong time to render an hour of movies on my old single core computer. I have not tried to do so with my new quad core, but will start soon with editing some TV programs/movies I downloaded. I hope you're right that it will take a lot shorter to render those!
 
EINREB said:
Thanks for the answer and good explanation of what multiple cores are about.
With prices of processors with multiple cores, it is almost silly not to buy one if you are upgrading anyway. In my case the salesman thought that, after listening to me what I use a computer for, it was not necessary to buy one with more cores than 4, and I think he was right.
Since I am mainly running XP, I wonder if they will ever come up with new multicore software for that OS in the future anyway, they will be going to concentrate on later versions of Windows. It will be different when I run 7 or the new 8, I guess, and then the multi cores will hopefully help.

QUOTE from spirit -As mentioned above, you won't notice all that much difference when doing day to day stuff, but trying rendering or video/photo editing or archiving files on a single core - takes a while doesn't it? Now try it on your quad-core, should be a heck of a lot faster. Basically in multi-threaded applications the quad-core will run over the single core and some. END QUOTE

Yes, it does take a l-o-o-o-ong time to render an hour of movies on my old single core computer. I have not tried to do so with my new quad core, but will start soon with editing some TV programs/movies I downloaded. I hope you're right that it will take a lot shorter to render those!
Click to expand...

Not only will it be faster because it is like having 4 of you old computer, but each core is most likely at a higher speed and the cores are faster as in they do more per cycle, and the ghz is the measure of cycles per second
 
EINREB said:
Yes, it does take a l-o-o-o-ong time to render an hour of movies on my old single core computer. I have not tried to do so with my new quad core, but will start soon with editing some TV programs/movies I downloaded. I hope you're right that it will take a lot shorter to render those!
Click to expand...
I am right, the quad-core Phenom will be a world above and beyond any single-core CPU when it comes to rendering. I went from a Pentium 4 HT to an i5 760 a few years back, the four cores the i5 had made all the difference in the world.
 
multitasking is a plus to was a pain having multiple things opened on my grandma's computer everything just lagged lol
 
ayan said:
The difference is obvious. Which is better, one horse pulling a carriage? or 4 horses?
Click to expand...

Which is better: One large horse or four small horses?

The large horse is only able to do one thing at a time, while the four small horses can do multiple things at once, and still have the force of one large if the carriage (software) supports it.

1 core = 1 action at a time
4 cores = 4 actions at a time

wolfeking said:
It does not have HT because it is classified as a "top end" CPU feature, and celerons have never had top end features.
Click to expand...

I would like to turn your attention to Intel Celeron G460 on Intel's own website and read some interesting things.

# of cores: 1
# of threads: 2
HyperThreading: Yes

I'm not calling you out or starting any beef, the G460 just do in fact have HT and 2 threads.
 
Last edited:
Jiniix said:
I would like to turn your attention to Intel Celeron G460 on Intel's own website and read some interesting things.

# of cores: 1
# of threads: 2
HyperThreading: Yes

I'm not calling you out or starting any beef, the G460 just do in fact have HT and 2 threads.
Click to expand...
Okay, noted. Also note that it is the only modern single core processor. So intel is saying right there that they made a mistake. All the other Celerons are 2 core 2 thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top