Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Multi threading?

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 25, 2010 2:15:28 PM

I am asking in this forum is multi threading important in a CPU situation in a general use situation, some games very light multi tasking,web browsing etc.
Are 2 cores more worth the eficency and frequency of 2 cores less?

By the way leave OC out of the question pls.

More about : multi threading

a b à CPUs
May 25, 2010 2:48:10 PM

Your budget would be a major consideration. Quad core CPU's (especially AMD ones) are cheap enough to be within reach of most consumers. For future-proofing, I would say go for a quad (Athlon II 630 or equivalent). If however your budget is really tight, and you don't plan to do serious gaming or multitasking, a dual-core will be sufficient.
Related resources
May 25, 2010 4:56:59 PM

Here is some further info regarding this topic:

http://forum.x c p u s.com/intel/73-single-core-vs-dual-core-vs-quad-core.html
You will have to remove the spaces between the x c p u s as this forum is STILL filtering that forum.
a b à CPUs
May 25, 2010 5:21:50 PM

Kracer said:
I am asking in this forum is multi threading important in a CPU situation in a general use situation, some games very light multi tasking,web browsing etc.
Are 2 cores more worth the eficency and frequency of 2 cores less?

By the way leave OC out of the question pls.


Well is multi threading importation? it can be, depending on the games and programs you use.

Now from what info you giving us, i would say a dual core is fine. although i would recommend a tri core cpu like Athlon II x3 435 for a decent long term cpu or a quad core athlon ii x4 630 for a long lasting computer.

Quote:
Are 2 cores more worth the eficency and frequency of 2 cores less?


thats something none of us can really answer except for you, as everyone requirements and/or need for a computer is different and those requirements and/or needs change over the years.

Some of them are,

How long do you want this computer to last? 1 year, 2 years, 5 years, ect?

Do you see your self changing the way you use a computer in the future? like just going from web surfing now to high end gaming later on.

Do you want it to be energy efficient? 2 cores of the same series of cpu does use less electicity than 3, 4, or 6 core cpus.

Those are just a few examples of what makes it hard to say, " (this) is worth it more than (that)".

May 25, 2010 6:09:18 PM

The best analogy I have heard regarding the use of multi-core processors versus a single core higher frequency cpu is as follows.

imagine a quad core 2.2 Ghz processor as 4 men carrying 2.2 gallons of water each
now imagine the single 3.2 Ghz processor as 1 man carrying 3.2 gallons of water.

The 4 men can carry much more water than the single man but only in parallel; meaning it all really depends on the softwares ability to utilize the 4 core processor, but I have found that generally, YES multi-core processors are a necessity.
Hope that is the correct analogy for your question.
a b à CPUs
May 25, 2010 7:08:20 PM

Bear in mind that multi-core processors are the future. Already the number of multi-core processors is exponentially greater than number of solo processors available. Within a year-year & a half, the solos will definitely be dead.
a c 448 à CPUs
May 25, 2010 7:48:32 PM

Keep in mind that the programs / games you use must be programed to take advantage of multi-threaded cores, otherwise they would just run on one core while the other core(s) remains more or less idle.

Example, encoding video using XviD with my quad core CPU, the bulk of the processing is performed by one of the cores while the load on the other three cores is rather low. I think the overall load on my Q9450 is around 45% - 50% Encoding video using the H.264 format, all four cores are utilized and CPU usage is basically at 100%.

Multiple core CPUs can execute more than one task at a time. So even when using a dual or quad core can make the PC feel like it runs just a little bit more smoother.

"Quad core is the future", but I believe most programs would be optimized for dual core rather than for quad cores. Games are different, I think over time more and more will take advantage of quad cores faster than just "regular programs".

For general use and gaming I would just stick with a dual core CPU. If you are a hardcore gamer or you are gonna encode video using the H.264 codec, then sure go for a quad core.
May 26, 2010 5:50:07 PM

as it is coming up i am thinking of buying an i3 530 or an athlon II X4 630 and in the future an i5 750 or Phenom II X6 1055T (according to the mobo i choose now)
i find both pairs of competitors at the same price, so what shall i choose (remember what i choose now will determine my future upgrade)
a b à CPUs
May 27, 2010 9:16:51 AM

If future upgradability is important to you, then get the AMD; since socket AM3 is supposed to have a longer life than Intel's 1156. In the future, you could simply drop an AM3 into the board; & with a BIOS update (if reqd), you'd be good to go.
!