BetaArchive Logo
Navigation Home Screenshots Image Uploader Server Info FTP Servers Wiki Forum RSS Feed Rules Please Donate
UP: 25d, 23h, 5m | CPU: 13% | MEM: 5880MB of 10981MB used
{The community for beta collectors}

Forum rules


Any off topic discussions should go in this forum. Post count is not increased by posting here.
FTP Access status is required to post in this forum. Find out how to get it


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ] 
Author Message
 PostPost subject: quad core clock speed help...        Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 7:59 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Aug 20, 2007 4:58 pm

Posts
274

Location
The Bermuda Triangle

Favourite OS
WFW 3.11/Win 98SE
im looking a building a new compy, my current rig is 10 years old, so i figure it might be time to upgrade...

anyway, i was thinking of getting a quad core processor, therin lies the problem, the one im looking at is clocked at like 1.9 ghz, is this 1.9 ghz altogether, or 1.9 ghz per core? i know my way around a computer, but this is a question thats been bugging me since dual core processors were released...

_________________
Image


Top  Profile  YIM
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 9:38 pm 
Reply with quote
Permanently Banned
Offline

Joined
Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:09 am

Posts
463
Each core runs at 1.9ghz. This *WILL NOT* equal 5whaever ghz. It will show up as 1.9ghz, and only certain things of windows, and certain apps, will use the extra 3 cores.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 7:00 am 
Reply with quote
Administrator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:47 am

Posts
12473

Location
Merseyside, United Kingdom

Favourite OS
Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate x64
Zimmy is right. Each core is 1.9GHz. Its just like having 4x1.9GHz CPU's in your pc. However, I'd opt for a faster dual core of the same price as you will get better performance out of a dual core than a quad core as the technology stands at the moment.

_________________
Image

BetaArchive Discord: https://discord.gg/epK3r6A


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 8:08 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Andy wrote:
Zimmy is right. Each core is 1.9GHz. Its just like having 4x1.9GHz CPU's in your pc. However, I'd opt for a faster dual core of the same price as you will get better performance out of a dual core than a quad core as the technology stands at the moment.

If the apps he's going to run can fully utilize a quad-core CPU or if he runs multiple single-threaded apps simultaneously, the quad-core is still the better choice despite its lower clock speed.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 8:11 am 
Reply with quote
Administrator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:47 am

Posts
12473

Location
Merseyside, United Kingdom

Favourite OS
Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate x64
empireum wrote:
Andy wrote:
Zimmy is right. Each core is 1.9GHz. Its just like having 4x1.9GHz CPU's in your pc. However, I'd opt for a faster dual core of the same price as you will get better performance out of a dual core than a quad core as the technology stands at the moment.

If the apps he's going to run can fully utilize a quad-core CPU or if he runs multiple single-threaded apps simultaneously, the quad-core is still the better choice despite its lower clock speed.


I quite agree but the majority of apps on the market today just aren't equipped for use on quad cores, and the performance would be much better on a dual core.

Dan (Sillyproject Dan) went back to a dual core for this very reason, and he uses almost every app you could think of.

_________________
Image

BetaArchive Discord: https://discord.gg/epK3r6A


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 8:15 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
It depends what programs you will be using as to whether it's worth paying the extra to get the Quad over a Dual core. If it's games, then it's not worth it as game performance is limited mainly by the graphics card, not the CPU, and two cores is more than adequate for processing the AI and physics; pretty much everything else is done by the graphics card, and games are not optimised for large numbers of processors anyway. You'll only notice the difference from the two extra cores in certain specialist apps like those used in benchmarks that show the Quad to outperform dual cores by a significant margin.

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 3:30 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 19, 2006 1:25 am

Posts
590

Location
Israel
Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:
You'll only notice the difference from the two extra cores in certain specialist apps like those used in benchmarks that show the Quad to outperform dual cores by a significant margin.

Video editing, software compilation, games with highly complex physics engines (UT2007 anyone?), scientific applications, servers, and that's just off the top of my head.

Multi-CPU systems have existed long before personal computers. Modern GPUs are just arrays of dozens (and even hundreds) of stripped down CPUs (usually just the FPU part). A Radeon X2800 contains about 100 processing cores, and 100% of them are used 99% of the time (when using the GPU, of course). Usually, software that needs the extra power, uses it. Highly parallel games are only a matter of time. IMO, games able to utilize four cores will be common long before DirectX-10-only games are. Modern console games already do that (XBox 360 has three cores, PS3 has eight, and they're all used).


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 3:45 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Aug 18, 2006 4:30 pm

Posts
1524

Favourite OS
Mac OS 9.2.2
ppc_digger wrote:
Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:
You'll only notice the difference from the two extra cores in certain specialist apps like those used in benchmarks that show the Quad to outperform dual cores by a significant margin.

Video editing, software compilation, games with highly complex physics engines (UT2007 anyone?), scientific applications, servers, and that's just off the top of my head.

Multi-CPU systems have existed long before personal computers. Modern GPUs are just arrays of dozens (and even hundreds) of stripped down CPUs (usually just the FPU part). A Radeon X2800 contains about 100 processing cores, and 100% of them are used 99% of the time (when using the GPU, of course). Usually, software that needs the extra power, uses it. Highly parallel games are only a matter of time. IMO, games able to utilize four cores will be common long before DirectX-10-only games are. Modern console games already do that (XBox 360 has three cores, PS3 has eight, and they're all used).
mmmn 8 cores! Imagine running Doom on that ...

_________________
Image
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC; en-US; mimic; rv:9.3.2) Clecko/20120101 Classilla/CFM
"Stupid can opener! You killed my father, and now you've come back for me!"


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 12:45 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Nov 01, 2006 10:30 pm

Posts
156

Location
France

Favourite OS
Windows 7 SP1 x64
teriaki 511 wrote:
the one im looking at is clocked at like 1.9 ghz

1.9 Ghz Quad Core? What CPU is that exactly? :^)

Andy wrote:
Dan (Sillyproject Dan) went back to a dual core

Yup, I had a Q6600 (4 x 2400Mhz) overclocked to 4 x 3600 Mhz ... Most of the time at least 2 of the cores were just ideling, even when multitasking. It was very, very rare that I saw all 4 cores working hard at the same time. This was on Vista 64 bit with 4 Gb ram, it was very fast, but you just can't use the power without programs that are properly multithreaded, and there arn't alot of them at the moment. In my opinion, the best choice at the moment is the Core 2 Duo E6850, which is what I have now. 2 x 3 Ghz, 4 Mb cache and a 1333 Mhz FSB, and of course the famous G0 stepping which runs cool and overclocks very well.

ppc_digger wrote:
PS3 has eight, and they're all used

The PS3 only has 7 cores, and one of the cores is reserved for the OS.
I have Fedora 7 Linux runing on my PS3, and it only detects 2 cores, boo ...
Having said that, it'd be useless having more, as the PS3 has hardly any ram ...

_________________
~ Dan


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 7:15 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 19, 2006 1:25 am

Posts
590

Location
Israel
DanielC wrote:
ppc_digger wrote:
PS3 has eight, and they're all used

The PS3 only has 7 cores, and one of the cores is reserved for the OS.
I have Fedora 7 Linux runing on my PS3, and it only detects 2 cores, boo ...
Having said that, it'd be useless having more, as the PS3 has hardly any ram ...

It has a two thread PPE (i.e. two general purpose cores running standard PowerPC instructions) and eight SPEs (basically a dedicated, but not stripped-down, extremely powerful SIMD processor), one of which is disabled (in order to increase production yields), and one is used exclusively by the hypervisor that runs on top of Linux. You only see two cores because you have to use special software in order to take advantage of the extra six SIMD cores.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 8:08 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Nov 01, 2006 10:30 pm

Posts
156

Location
France

Favourite OS
Windows 7 SP1 x64
I stand corrected, even if I was right, in a way ... :D

I just didn't know, until I just looked it up, that it had the PPE bit as well ... :)

But anyway, this has nothing to do with the original quad core question ... :D

_________________
~ Dan


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 8:22 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 22, 2007 8:42 am

Posts
173

Location
Manchester, UK

Favourite OS
AmigaOS3.9
So... with my Sempron2600+, would it be just as well to wait untill full quadcore support games come out before I upgrade to a quadcore AMD? I'ld like a dualcore Athlon64, though...... ;)

I shy away from Intel's bloated prices whenever I can. Now that's a big surprise, I guess :P


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:17 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sun Nov 12, 2006 1:47 am

Posts
161

Location
Melbourne, Australia
Doctor Mindvipe wrote:
So... with my Sempron2600+, would it be just as well to wait untill full quadcore support games come out before I upgrade to a quadcore AMD? I'ld like a dualcore Athlon64, though...... ;)

I shy away from Intel's bloated prices whenever I can. Now that's a big surprise, I guess :P


intel has good prices on the Q6600, but im waiting for a phenom quad next month, intel will never get my money again after its huge market monopolising, its just pathetic they get away with it so easily


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 9:00 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Nov 01, 2006 10:30 pm

Posts
156

Location
France

Favourite OS
Windows 7 SP1 x64
Doctor Mindvipe wrote:
I shy away from Intel's bloated prices whenever I can.

It depends what end of the price range you look at. What about the Core based Celerons, Pentium Dual Cores (no, not Pentium D, it's not the same thing), and the E4xxx series Core 2's, they're all cheap, and they're all reasonaly fast for "normal" usage. You can get socket 775 motherboards at prices just as low as AMD ones, so you can have a cheap Intel sysem that's ok. AMD fans are just sore because they have nothing to boast about in the top end of the market, yet ...

stealth wrote:
im waiting for a phenom quad next month

Will you be getting a dual, tripple or quad core? 8-)

_________________
~ Dan


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 9:16 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 22, 2007 8:42 am

Posts
173

Location
Manchester, UK

Favourite OS
AmigaOS3.9
Well, I figure... an AMD Athlon64 5500+, is cheaper than the equivalent intel-CPU. And to get a price-equivalent intel will certainly loose me CPU-power.

I just happen to think that AMD's CPU-optimizations are much better than intel's.... I'm not boating about how "good" or "bad" either are, just how much there's to save by buying a speed-equivalent (more or less) AMD over intel ;)


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:20 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Nov 01, 2006 10:30 pm

Posts
156

Location
France

Favourite OS
Windows 7 SP1 x64
What you want is a nice Cyrix 233 Mhz ... :D

_________________
~ Dan


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 11:58 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 22, 2007 8:42 am

Posts
173

Location
Manchester, UK

Favourite OS
AmigaOS3.9
Well.... in my C=64, yes... not anywhere else :P


Top  Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ] 




Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  

All views expressed in these forums are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the BetaArchive site owner.

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Copyright © 2006-2018

 

Sitemap | XML | RSS