"There isn’t much of a benefit now as almost all OS’s and Applications are compiled for 32 bit CPU’s."
^^^this fact is what originally had me questioning the advantages of the dual core..., & my questioning this is what initiated this thread to begin with...I'm glad it was questioned, because now I know the advantages despite this fact, thanks for helping to clear this up.... I wasn't even sure if xp could use the two threads at the same time, as xp was developed way before dual cores were even here...
re-read your first 2 sentences from your first post & you'll see why it came off as offensive.... I know I've done the same several times, & going back & re-reading what I wrote, I then realized how what I said could have come across different from how I meant it:)
so now my last question, 2 different scenarios:
1) a dual core(say 1.6, 667fsb, laptop processor) running all applications with 2 gigs of ram
2) 2 separate Pentium m machines, both 1.6's, both 533 fsb, & each a gig of ram each, with half the programs running on one machine, half on the other...
the question..... which would give better overall performance, & by approx. how much? & lastly, suppose the 2 Pentium m machines EACH had 2 gigs of ram, what would this do to the equation?
Well, I recently built my second carPC, this time with a Core Duo at 2.13 ghz. My previous was a Pentium-M at 2.26. The ram is the same, both drives are the same, and the videocard is the same (more or less), but the new carPC runs much faster than the old one, noticeably so. Not that the typical carPC software really strains either one of those chips, but the extra performance of the Core Duo is nice.
This is easy. Scenario 2 would perform considerably better. This is due in no part to the processors, but to the advantage of having 2 of everything. It is not that 2 Pentium Ms are faster than 1 Core 2 Duo (they may be, it would be very hard to test), but that you have 2 of everything else. People do not realize what impact the bandwidth of other parts of the computer has on performance. Raising the speed of your RAM, FSB, and HT can have a huge performance impact (this is assuming that you adjusted the multiplier to keep the actual CPU clock at/near the stock speed).
Originally Posted by turbocad6
x86 is a CISC instruction set - the instruction size (opcode) varies. 32-bit or 64-bit has nothing to do with the opcodes - it has to do with the size of a memory address and the registers. Wikipedia for reference.
Originally Posted by meyer64
People that rant about other people being wrong, then being wrong themselves really bug me. I have to agree with turbocad
Originally Posted by v1per
ok, that was my initial assumption too, the cache & buss speeds are signifiantly larger buy being 2 systems, but..., now add to this equation that there are two instances of xp running... 2 complete sets of services, & 2 times the drivers... would this even it out some or would it stil be sigificantly faster?
define significantly. In some ways it probably will be, granted its not a really spyware and virus infected XP ;)
Can you specifiy with a dual core pc what programs run on each processor? i.e. tell all windows processes to be run on one core and everything else on the other?
If that is the case, then it may be like splitting hairs...
I don't mean to be a stick in the mud, but there are a lot of misconceptions being posted. I am no expert, but I do follow hardware and have been pretty rigerously since I started playing with computers (around 80286 days, currently a sysadmin in SD). The Itanium, is actually based on the I-64 instruction set, and is not a RiSC processor. Hopefully I can clear up some misconceptions and put you back on track.
The dual cores come down to whether or not the program is coded for it. Sure, you can get away with more multi-tasking given you have an operating system that supports it (XP Pro I believe does, not sure about home version, and Vista Business should and higher versions). Some newer games support multi-core chips. And comparing mhz to mhz does not equate (i.e. 1.66 core 2 duo is not like a P4 1.66 or AMD Athlon 1.66). AMD actually brought in a whole new model nomenclature to offset and try to make this distinction prior to the core 2 duo as Intel ramped up mhz of the P4 and ignored a lot of other factors, but it still gets confused. Again, I digress.
Like others have mentioned, 64-bit doesn't really mean much in terms of dual-core processing. It is a different instruction set that allows certain things (like more memory to be available, more information to be handled at once, etc...) to happen. If you are planning on running 64-bit native applications (I don't know of any?) you will see a performance increase drastic enough to warrant caring about it. If your audio application has been optimized to run at 64-bit (maybe process sounds in 64 bits?) then you should be concerned. Otherwise, you can see an improvement simply by installing a 64-bit o/s (WinXP-64, Vista-64, RHEL-64, etc...) but that is mostly at the O/S level, and you will see a small improvement of maybe 5-10% versus 32 bit applications. With this, I would like to point out the following.
What is your primary function? At MP3Car.com I would assume it would be to put an efficient, portable, attractive computing device in your car. Putting a computer in your car forces you to make a number of decisions and plan plenty of trade-offs to get the best you want. Let's examine what this should mean to you and almost anyone trying to put in a computer in his/her car.
What I mean by this is in terms of cost and output. This is overall. You can break it up into raw computational power, but I would prefer to also consider cost in terms of money, heat, power consumed, and the like. The reason so many enthusiasts like to go with a DC to DC power supply is not becuase of the monetary cost, but the heat dissipation is less (less power consumed). With this I would like to point out the power consumed by the Core 2 Duo. For a while during the Pentium 4 era AMD actually was king in terms of CPU efficiency (monetary cost, power consumption, and computational output). Intel's netBurst architecture was horrible, and Intel knew it. When the Centrino line of CPU's landed in their lap, they knew they had a dure-fire winner. After marketing the crap out of it, and developing it into a desktop counterpart, a couple of revisions later and manufacturing processes later you have the Core 2 Duo. A CPU bred from the ground up to be a power-conscious CPU for the mainstream market. If you want some more information on the power consumption (and a great way to help plan for your power needs) check out http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...oc.aspx?i=2855 . Actually, most of my information I am talking about can be referenced from anandtech.com - a fabulous online journalistic approach to hardware enthusiasts. With running in 64-bits, while gaining a flat 5-10% performance increase simply from a compatible o/s, you will also require more power and output more heat. This requires more current to the carputer as well as means to cool it; not an easy task in such an environment. I think I have spoken enough in terms of efficiency, but I would like to add that since the future of computing has really been decided to be multi-core computational power rather then ramping up mhz, the real development in CPU's as of late have been shoving more cores (i.e. more CPU's) into a single processor (and also sticking in more cache to support those cores). If you still are not sold on multi-core architecture, there is a Core 2 Solo (conversly, if you ARE sold on it, there will be a Core 2 Quad coming out later this year :) )
You want something that will not take a lot of space (I again, assume). You have a limited amount of space in your vehicle, and you really wouldn't want to take up a bunch of it with a computer. If you have a huge power-hungry computer you have to think not only about the physical space of that honker, but also the means to keep it cool and operational. Core 2 Duo's are based on a newer process then it's predicessors, and run cooler by default. Get a version that runs slower, and has less cache, and you also will see less heat dissipation. Please keep in mind you will be losing out on computational power, so the balance is ultimately up to you to decide what you need.
This really goes mostly into the casing, but I feel like it has some bearing on the topic again going to the last 2 pointers. If you need something that requires a lot of cooling you will need to make it look ugly, or put more power into cooling it attractively (water cooling looks cool, along with phase-change and such, but I doubt you will want to put that in your car). If you have a small petite case that looks cute, that is what you will have to work with.
Well, I don't know if I helped or confused you, but really what I feel is this: Intel has really hit a great balance with power consumed versus computational output with the Core 2 Duo (and solo and quad versions, respectively) based on the Core architecture. I have long been an AMD fan, as this usually is/was their strong suit, but Intel really has struck back. What can you expect from an alternative? Well, AMD actually is coming out with a line of efficient processors under 65W of consumption and that should make things interesting. Also, they are trying to introduce a new ATX form-factor case called DaTX or something (please see anandtech.com for CES coverage, and it is in there!). It is a more portable, cute, looking standard for computer cases. Hmm, on a sidenote: you also would want to check out solid-state hard drives (again, check out CES coverage) as your power useage will drop considerably, boot times go down, and overall system runs faster (the hard drive is probably the WORST bottle-neck of your computer system). Sorry if this is overwhelming, but I felt like I needed to post something and I like to do it in a fashion helpful to a bunch of people. Good luck building your carputer, I know I will need it for building mine!
EDIT: If you are wondering about the difference between the mobile and desktop, the simple idea to consider is that laptops try and make most of the limited power they have. If you want that (which I think would be optimal) then it probably is the best route. Keep in mind you will need a motherboard that supports it as it is a different socket then the regular desktop counterpart.
very nice first post. Very well worded too.
Do you have a car pc Potato?
just one correction to his post... we run DC-DC power supplies because they are much more stable and much less prone to breaking other things down the line..
the efficiency is more of a nice bonus
Nice post Potatoman as well as a few others from the begining.
What are your takes on socket adapters for adapting mobile processors to Desktop boards? It was something I came across when I was trying to determine if I could use a socket 478 mobile processor in a socket 478 desktop board. The only one I saw was for adapting a socket 479 processor to a socket 478 board. (Sorry I know this is kind of unrelated to the core duo discussion and is older technology). Anyway, this is good info in case I need to go the core duo route instead down the road. Right now its all about $$$.
Originally Posted by PotatoMAN