Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why get a multi core cpu?

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 27, 2010 12:51:44 PM

Hello,
I can't figure out for the life of me why I would upgrade from a p4 3.6 to say an AMDPhenom 84xx triple core cpu when the benchmarks for it are pretty much a single core matching its speed. wich is 2.1-2.6ghz area. So in the areas of concern like using my DAW, or photoshop, or audio coding, number crunching stuff as far as I'm concerned , it performs slower than the p4 3.6. Thats dumb. Its almost unanimous throughout the charts that the multi core cpu's perform on par with the same speed single core counter parts. Multi core has been out for ages and software co's still aren't writing code for it. WTF?

More about : multi core cpu

a b à CPUs
September 27, 2010 1:21:38 PM

what charts have you seen this on (ie please post them), i feel pretty confident that a 2.1 GHz tri core Phenom I could beat a P4 at these tasks as most of them utilize multiple cores (i would imagine DAW and audio coding would, but not entirely sure)
a b à CPUs
September 27, 2010 1:22:01 PM

camplo said:
Hello,
I can't figure out for the life of me why I would upgrade from a p4 3.6 to say an AMDPhenom 84xx triple core cpu when the benchmarks for it are pretty much a single core matching its speed. wich is 2.1-2.6ghz area. So in the areas of concern like using my DAW, or photoshop, or audio coding, number crunching stuff as far as I'm concerned , it performs slower than the p4 3.6. Thats dumb. Its almost unanimous throughout the charts that the multi core cpu's perform on par with the same speed single core counter parts. Multi core has been out for ages and software co's still aren't writing code for it. WTF?



Perhaps that's because you're completely, totally, and stupidly wrong. And clearly haven't even bothered to look at any benchmarks, becuase if you did you wouldn't make such asinine statements.


Photoshop: http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-desktop-cpu-cha...

Audio Encoding:

Lame 3: http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-desktop-cpu-cha...

iTunes: http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-desktop-cpu-cha...
Related resources
a b à CPUs
September 27, 2010 1:24:21 PM

mindless728 said:
what charts have you seen this on (ie please post them), i feel pretty confident that a 2.1 GHz tri core Phenom I could beat a P4 at these tasks as most of them utilize multiple cores (i would imagine DAW and audio coding would, but not entirely sure)



He's an uneducated idiot looking at the P4's 3.6 Ghz clock speed, thinking to himself that "Hey! 3.6 is bigger than 2.4!!", and then posting his stupidity here so we can spend a rainy Monday ridiculing him for our amusement.

So in a way he's doing us a public service. :lol: 
a b à CPUs
September 27, 2010 1:50:27 PM

Scotteq said:
He's an uneducated idiot looking at the P4's 3.6 Ghz clock speed, thinking to himself that "Hey! 3.6 is bigger than 2.4!!", and then posting his stupidity here so we can spend a rainy Monday ridiculing him for our amusement.

So in a way he's doing us a public service. :lol: 


well i thought maybe he had some benches from a no name site possibly making a joke

though i played CS:S this morning so i got my ridiculing done for the day
September 27, 2010 1:51:12 PM

Image Editing with Adobe Photoshop
using Photoshop CS3 (Applying 6 Filters on 96 MB TIFF file)
==========================================
Intel Pentium 4 661
Dual 3.60 GHz, 2MB, Cedar Mill, FSB800, DDR2-667
=187 seconds

and then I saw

Adobe Photoshop CS 4
Image Processing (Applying 6 filters to a 69 MB TIF image)

AMD Phenom X3 8650 (Toliman 3c)
2.3 GHz, DDR2-1066, 1.5 MB L2, 2 MB L3
= 323 seconds

Its an easy mistake right?. No reason they shouldn't have an ultimate chart comparing every and all cpus just for the heck of it.

Another chart...that I missed...... that had CS 3...... instead of CS4.

AMD Phenom X3 8450
2.10 GHz, DDR2-1066 (Toliman)
=168 seconds

Scotteq you posted twice on my so called lame post. Calm down Nerd.

Mindless you were right, I mis read the charts.

Even more confusing is

Intel Pentium D 960
Dual 3.60 GHz, 2MB, Presler, FSB800, DDR2-667

on the same chart as the p4 with a score of
185 seconds... Not to mention the CS3 chart with the newer cpu's suspiciously does not specify what the actual testing procedure is.

Sooo For about 120 bucks I could gain 20 seconds if I switched to a X3 8450 with new mb and ram. NICE!
a b à CPUs
September 27, 2010 2:14:45 PM



Thanks for the laugh! :D 
September 27, 2010 2:19:31 PM

No prob, I'm going over to the GPU section if you'd like to follow......
a b à CPUs
September 27, 2010 3:06:54 PM

camplo said:
No prob, I'm going over to the GPU section if you'd like to follow......



No thanks - They're *mean* over there! :o  ;)  :na:  :lol: 
a b à CPUs
September 27, 2010 9:29:15 PM

I am not sure if I understand what you are asking, but if you think that clock speed is the only thing that has to do with a CPU's power, then that is false, there are many things that influence CPU power other then clockrate. Cache, Architecture, cores, technology, ram connection (FSB, QPI)..etc.
a b à CPUs
September 27, 2010 9:33:07 PM

Sorry for double post, but Camplo, if you call scotteq a Nerd, you would be a hypocrite, because according to dictionary.com Nerd also means stupid...and you would fall under that category.
Proof: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Nerd

Not meaning to insult anyone...just pointing it out.
a b à CPUs
September 27, 2010 9:48:34 PM

There are 3 aspects of this.
1. Different processors, at the same clock speed, will run a given program faster or slower. In the past some AMD processors would run faster at equivalent clock speeds to some Intel processors. In recent years this got reversed. But if you compare an older single core pentium with a new dual core you'll find that the dual core will do more work at the same clock speed as the older cpu. Now if you compare one of the new i5 or i7 processors at the same clock speed as a dual core or quad core, the i5 or i7 will do more. So newer processors are getting more powerful even though their maximum clock speeds may not be improving that fast.

2. A multi core processor will run some software faster, but other software at the same speed. Some games and some video processing software will take advantage of the additional cores and run significantly faster.

3. With multi cores your computer can run multiple programs at the same time faster. This is not when you have a word processor open and a browser and you are switching between them because when you leave one app it probably isn't doing anything anymore. Instead what I mean is when you run a virus scan and then decide you want to do something else at the same time. With a single core processor your machine would be almost unusable, but with multi core processor you can certainly keep working. My quad core machine at home can run a virus scan while I'm working in other programs and I never even know it.
a b à CPUs
September 27, 2010 10:08:04 PM

If you can't figure out why you would upgrade from ANY p4 you are clueless.
a b à CPUs
September 28, 2010 12:06:35 AM

I am not so concerned about the actual core count for this topic. When I upgrade from a single to dual it wasn't that I needed the extra core.


a b à CPUs
September 28, 2010 12:40:46 AM

Meh. It all what you do that makes a difference if you need 12 core cpu or a single core cpu.

As for me, more core the better. F@H is the most stressful program i run and it will uses anything that you allow to use.

it's certainly noticeable difference between the time when these computer get work done. Core i7 720QM laptop (at -smp3) takes 16 to 18 hours to complete, pentium dual core laptop @ 1.8 GHz takes 1 day and 10 hours to complete, and a pentium 4 HT (desktop) @ 2.8ghz takes 2 days and 20 hours.

Although if you only use programs that run on single cores, you wont notice a difference. Which would either have to be stuff like word or programs that were made 5 years ago...... Most are made for at least dual cores today.
a c 172 à CPUs
September 28, 2010 3:21:59 PM

You can have a drive full of programs that run on a single core, but that is not only what is going on. Open Task Manager and look at all the running processes.

Open a Word document on a fairly quick P4. Print it. Now try to do something else while the doc prints. Your system will bog down. Even a mediocre dual core CPU will run better.
a b à CPUs
September 29, 2010 12:36:39 AM

Of course it will. Because even a mediocre dual core is faster at everything than a p4. A 12 core p4 would still be a dirt slow.

Those background task running really require a second core. They are mainly idle and doing nothing.


Again my point is simply this. You upgrade from a p4 simply because the p4 is trash. Not JUST because it is a single core. If you had one of the AM3 single core chips in your system you would be fine.
a c 123 à CPUs
September 29, 2010 12:40:36 AM

A simple answer is that there is no such thing as a single core in most every area except the super super low end. SO if you decide to get a new PC< you will get a dual core or better.

As for what you do, pretty much everything you do will benefit from more cores.
!