Ok, here goes. This will be in order from the first post to the last.
Quote:
So a recent discussion has made me wonder about my previous thoughts.
I've been under the impression that if you're going to be running multiple programs at once, a multi core processor is desireable.
Recently I had someone mention that they believed that the benefits of dual core processors won't be noticed unless you're running 64bit programs or Vista and the like.
So which is it? Getting into the technicalslike this I'm not very well versed on what each processor type does well, etc.
First of all, to directly answer your question, the former is correct, you will see increased performance when running a dual core chip regardless of software. You can get more speed when software is designed to use this power, but all is not lost if the software is not coded in such a fashion.
Quote:
Dual core is a nice feature, but I doubt it would be useful in CarPC applications. Unless you are using a mobile cpu, the power usage would generally be too high to be efficient. One advantage I could see would be to change affinities between cores for different applications so one wouldn't lag (example: set winamp to core0, everything else to core1) Then your music would bever skip/lag and winamp would always be responsive.
A dual core CPU would actually be incredibly beneficial in a car PC application. think about it, you have RoadRunner, S&T 2007, Winamp, and Digimoto all running at the same time. Multiple cores will benefit you in this multitasking situation. The gist of what I'm saying is that almost all car PC users multi task every time they use their computer. This scenario is ideal for a multi-core processor.
Quote:
ok - everything you think most people would use a CarPC for in the car....throw it out the window.
I'm looking at doing all audio processing on the computer, which means I will have to run multiple instances of the same program, each with different settings for each output on the sound card, WinAmp with a 61 band EQ, Console, and a few others.
Well if you throw out all that... then you make the need for a multi-core processor even more apparent. At this point I would recommend using a workstation processor (Intel Xenon, AMD Opteron). I realize these would not be useful for many people because they have extremely high power requirements, but by your posts I assume the cost of extra power is not an issue. If it is you're going to be working pretty slowly.
Quote:
This is what i understand about the whole situation. There are several architectures for CPU's these days. With the x86 processors of old, they ran with a single chip, single "core", and at a 16bit processing depth. The pentium chip introduced the 32bit processing depth.
From here things get hazy. I think it was macintosh that started producing mutiple CPU motherboards with their G3 processor. They did this to compete with intel. Since they couldnt keep up with the evergrowing clock speeds of the intel pentium chips, which where nearing and surpassing the 1GHz mark, they crammed two 500MHz G3 chips on a board effectively increasing clock spead to just under 1 GHz.
Dual and even quad CPU boards have been around longer but were for the most part only for huge mainframe computers and servers. Mac made it available to "the average person"
Instead of following this cue from mac, intel continued with producing the pentium 4 and pushing it to the limits.
AMD was the first to produce a 64bit processing depth chip. The chip did not necessarily have an incredible clock speed (around the 2GHz mark) but could handle much more data. If a 32bit chip was a two lane highway this was a 4 lane.
In order to keep up business with the single core 64bit chip from AMD, they produced the dual core systems. Effectively this is exactly what Mac did way back when, except packaged in one unit. Each core is its own independent processor. Basically two chips smashed and melded together in one. If you look at the specs of these chips you will notice they too have 2GHz clock speeds which seem minute in comparison with the Pentium 4 which has reached 4 GHz in some cases. The distinct advantage the dual core has is the fact that it can handle a 64bit processing depth.
what does this all mean. Well for the most part not much for hte average user. The differences will be seen in large data processing and image renditions.
A dual core or any other 64bit chip will see great advantage in any machine. It will allow the use of 64bit software but if running a 32 bit system, it will be like opening flood gates for the information.
Think of it all like running Win 3.1 (a 16bit application) on a modern computer. It runs extremely fast. Thats because a 32bit chip has twice the capablility of the older 16bit chips
The same works for 32 bit vs 64 bit systems.
1. Yes, this is right.
2. Yea
3. Yes, supercomputers today use processor clusters (not a few, think tens of thousands)
4. Yes, they paid the price and the Core 2 Duo was the result.
5. Yes, well kinda. While a 64 bit chip could theoretically perform twice as well as a 32 bit chip this is far from accurate. My AMD 3500+ (2.2GHz clock) performs similarly to a 3.4GHz Intel Pentium 4.
6. Yes, but Intel and AMD rolled out their dual-core lines at about the same time. Intel was just senile and decided not to try to compete with the AMD 64 bit chips. Also, it is not just processing power, the lower clock makes the chip run cooler and use less power (less electrical energy is wasted when it is converted into heat energy).
7. This could not be farther from the truth. A dual-core or 64 bit processor will show just about any user a considerable performance gain over a Pentium 8. Ok, well this contradicts the last thing you said, but yea.
9. Refer to 5
10. Refer to 9
Quote:
The laptop versions of the Core 2 Duo and Core Duo chips are not very power hungry and would probably work well in a Car PC but i dont know enough to be a good judge.
I never mentioned before... but a dual core would work well for multi-tasking. Another thing to look at is FSB speed. The higher that is, the better the processing.
The Core Duo is a laptop processor, so yes, it would be ideal in a car PC. The Core 2 Duo is not power hungry, but this is by desktop standards. Remember, low heat and low power when discussing a desktop is drastically different from when you talk about a laptop. Also, looking at FSB speed is the opposite of what you do when you look at 64 bit and dual core processors. Also, FSB is not that important. The FSB is multiplied by the multiplier (imagine that) to get the processor speed. Most computers running DDR RAM will have an FSB of 200 MHz while those running DDR2 will vary.
Quote:
so a 32 bit software program can benifit from the 64 bit processor? cool... I always thought, from even back in the days of dual cpu's, that the software needed to be coded to take advantage of this....
I thought a 16 bit win 3.11 software flew on a modern machine because of the shear speed compared to what was, & the higher clock & the wider busses were a huge advantage, so your saying that it does double the processing?...
Yes, you will benefit from 64 bit regardless of software; no, you do not get double the processing.
Quote:
As far as my knowladge goes....
You dont necessaryily get DOUBLE the processing, but having the overhead room allows for the data to travel trough much quicker
clock speed and bus speed do increase the speed of processing quite a bit but the bit depth helps two.
A big differnece between the 32bit vs 16bit and the 64bit vs 32bit is that the chips today support 64bit processing but are also designed to be optimized with 32bit information. there wasnt quite the same design in the older chips
I might mention that im reading on intel's site right now and noticed they have the core 2 quad.... thats right a quad core chip....
imagine the heat though... those suckers must get hot.
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. The more cores the lower the heat, generally (especially compared to a P4)
Quote:
yeah, just done the same reading.... there is mntion of the software being designed to take full advantage & there is mention that even without that, xp will have more headroom...
when a dual core is listed as 2mb cache, is that for each core or the 2 combined?... guess I'll hit google some more
In relation to cache, it will usually list the cache size per core, written as 2X1MB.
Quote:
ummm ive been reading and usually its 1mb per core. or a 2x1mb L2 cache
but some have higher.
I think the core duo is a 1mb per core and the core 2 duo is 2mb per core
Often cache will vary within a processor line, not just between them.
Quote:
so realisticaly, how much of a benifit would a dual core w a 667 buss & 2 mb's total cache be, over a pentium m at the same clock speed, same 2 mb cache & a 533 fsb? I guess I should look for benchmarks....
Ok, any Core 2 Duo with any speed or amount of cache will completely shame any Pentium M, along with most other processors out right now. Benchmarks show that the bottom of the line Core 2 Duo (about $200 I think) can be overclocked to outperform an AMD 6000+ (about $900 I think). They mean business.
Linear Mode
