Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Dual-core vs quad-core

Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 8, 2012 4:50:30 AM


Hi guys,

I think this may be a dumb question, so please excuse my lack of knowledge.
(Originally I was going to post this in the laptop section but since it's mainly about CPU's, I thought this is a more fitting place.)

Is quad-core necessarily better (in terms of performance) than a dual-core in a laptop?

To my understanding, most apps do not yet utilize anything more than 2 cores, so why buy a 4 core machine sporting an i7 processor, as opposed to a daul-core i5?

Another confusion I had is the low clock speed of quad-core i-series processors. Yes, they can overclock (or run in turbo mode rather) to a much higher clock, but wouldn't the initial lower clock gives a lower overall system performance? (compared an i7 processor at 1.7 Ghz as opposed to an i5 processor at 2.5 Ghz)

The last confusion I had is about ultrabooks. If the reason to have an i7 processor in a laptop is because it offers 4 cores (instead of 2 cores) and its relatively larger cache, why settle for an ultrabook which currently only sports a dual-core i7 processor? How is it that Apple is able to squeeze a regular quad-core i7 processor in an ultrabook that PC can't, or won't?

Thanks,


Apisorder

More about : dual core quad core

a c 184 à CPUs
August 8, 2012 4:50:49 AM

Depends on the application at hand!


The ultrabook i7's are still dual core, if i remember correctly they are just clocked higher than the i5's.
August 8, 2012 5:06:26 AM


Hi amuffin,

Then what's the point of buying an i7 in this case?

(I think for most apps the SSD will be more of a performance factor than anything else, and while 4G is plenty for most uses, the dedicated VGA on ultrabook is simply not great for games/scientific computation, which would benefit from a higher cpu clock, right?)


Thanks,

Apisorder
Related resources
a c 184 à CPUs
August 8, 2012 5:08:56 AM

There really is no point!

I'm not sure if you're familiar with power supplies, but it's like spending the extra money for a fully-modular power supply when you HAVE to use the 24Pin ATX and 8 pin CPU connectors.
August 8, 2012 5:09:08 AM

1st- the need of 2 or 4 core depends on what you want to do with it, not how many apps use 2+ core. So tell us what you will do/do with your laptop and we'll try to help you do the best choice.

2nd- if laptop's procesors are sow low clocked is (imo) because power consumption. You juste have one battery to power the whole thing so if all laptops had fx 8150 @ 4.5 Ghz I don't think the battery could power the rest of the components. Another major issue with laptops is the heat. You can't put an enormous 8 heatpipes heatsink or a watercooling system in a laptop! so they have to clock them lower and btw i dont think you can overclock a mobile processor or if you can, i wouldn't try.

3rd- I hope your not buying from apple. There is so many other great laptops on the market and the only one you found is the overpriced stuff from apple? seriously, you should look somewhere else, you would get so much more for your money but maybe not quality i have to agree.
a b à CPUs
August 8, 2012 5:25:04 AM

if you go down this path, what's the point in getting a new computer.

Your computer from 5years ago surfed the web and did everything pretty much the same as you did now.

If it's slow, i argue that it's your harddrive or windows that's all full of viruses. (Do a clean wipe and it should be pretty speedy)
August 8, 2012 5:45:36 AM


I see.

Thank you, amuffin :-)


Apisorder
August 8, 2012 5:57:42 AM


Hi raytseng,

My rationale for getting a new computer is to realize performance and efficiency gains from a new architecture, hence prolonging battery life. Not all of us have room for a battery slice in our already stuffed bag, especially consider the number of textbooks we have to carry ah?

While I agree a clean install of Windows basically cleans up the cluttered hard drive space or Windows registry, this is not always the main factor that contributes to the slowness of the system.

For example, newer SSD, aside with its reliability issues (some new ones have driver/firmware update problems), really reduce system boot time and app load time. So while I agree a 5-year old system can still perform most daily tasks just fine, newer architectures, aside from Intel's purposes to make a profit, do tend to make things faster/more efficient.

I run Adobe CS6 Master Collection on my 2-year old laptop, and while app loading time is quite long, once it is finished loading, they run quite smoothly (they because I run two apps concurrently, Photoshop & Premiere Pro).

I guess I am simply asking if upgrading to a laptop with 4-core, bascially from 2-core i5 to 4-core i7 will really help system performance since I got enough ram (just 8G, but it's enough I find) and a fairly reasonably fast HDD (7200 RPM).

Thanks,

Apisorder
a c 184 à CPUs
August 8, 2012 5:59:25 AM

Just look for a laptop with an i7 and dedicated graphics! Adobe CS6 takes great advantage of GPU Acceleration!
August 8, 2012 6:05:01 AM


Hi 2260121,

For 1, I currently run Adobe CS6 Photoshop & Premiere Pro.
But I think for the Adobe apps, faster CPU is more important, not the # of cores, since they don't utilize more than a dual core (Photoshop could be an exception, however, as I read it somewhere.)

For 2, while I knew a lower clock is due to power consumption requirements, I was wondering if a 4-core system with a lower initial clock would result in an overall system performance than a 2-core system with a higher initial clock, even though the 4-core can turbo higher than the dual-core?

For 3, do you know this for a fact? I know from friends that Dell's Alienware offers quality hardware at a premium, just as Apple does. I mean, they are both expensive, but being expensive doesn't necessarily mean they are not good products right? With that said, Apple is indeed expensive, especially MBP.


Thanks,

Apisorder
a b à CPUs
August 8, 2012 6:07:38 AM

if the work and tasks that you do are not pausing or waiting on CPU, then your i7 is not the bottleneck, so yes, you are right in that case, i5 is the way to go to save money since computer is already fast enough.

As far as prolonging battery life, the fastest processor will actually be the best for that since Intel Speedstep comes into play (but will hurt your wallet the most).

At idle, both types of cpus will clockdown and expend about the same power. Unless for some crazy reason you disabled speedstep.

But Given a specific task, the faster processor will finish it faster. And typically the way the math and static power overhead works out, it will consume less total watts-hours (or at least the same).


Look at the power consumption chart for idle, they are the same

http://www.notebookcheck.net/In-Review-Intel-Ivy-Bridge...

They have increases in Watts for the load tests, but
the increases in the i7 tests fail to take into account that the job probably finishes faster, so total power consumption (watt-hours) for the task will be same or less.

People who have calculated watt-hours for a task, do show the faster processors end up being more efficient and take less electrons to do the job.

Or if you do a rough calculation, for example, the i7Q maybe double the speed in Prime, but doesn't take twice as many watts, so calculations/watt is more efficient.
August 8, 2012 6:09:08 AM


Hi amuffin,

Since GPU acceleration is so important, do I need to get a 4-core over a 2-core, if they are both i7? I heard that only Photoshop can utilize the full 4-core and the others only 2-core.

Why i7 then? If the VGA is good (fast enough), wouldn't it an i5 be just fine?


Which one matters more in this case, CPU speed or # of CPU's?


Thanks,

Apisorder
a c 184 à CPUs
August 8, 2012 6:09:52 AM

4 Cores and 8 Threads that the i7 has. Adobe programs can take great advantage of this, especially Premiere pro :) 
August 8, 2012 6:15:35 AM


Hi raytseng,


Given what you said, a dual-core i7 will not necessarily be more energy efficient than a quad-core counterpart right? (since the quad-core will consume twice as much power when they are idle but the if the apss can utilize quad-core, it may finish sooner) [ although generally it would since just by "sitting" there, a 4-core will consume about twice as much power as its 2-core version. ]

Besides getting the fastest CPU and a SSD, is there another way I can save power when on the go? My current laptop only lasts 3 to 4 hours.


Thanks,

Apisorder
August 8, 2012 6:20:27 AM


I see. I totally forgot about the hyper-threading thing.


I was wondering, amuffin, does the app need to be able to utilize 4-core to realize the 8 thread benefit as opposed to the 4-thread benefit a 2-core offers?

(So I guess Premiere Pro can utilize 4 core, just as Photoshop does?)


Thanks,


Apisorder
a b à CPUs
August 8, 2012 6:21:48 AM

no, at idle, both dual and quad use same power (see previous link). Intel Speedstep is very efficient.


At speed, quad core will use more watts than dual. But will do even more calculations. (I've edited previous post for example, or you can crunch the numbers yourself from the article to get calculations/watt).


So within the same architecture, the highest end processor will be the most battery efficient (but also the most expensive).
August 8, 2012 6:38:01 AM

Bottom line, more cores is always better. More resources are there on tap if necessary. If programs are well threaded those 4 cores will be used. If you open up a stack of programs, Windows will shuffle them around the cores/threads as required, and yes, more cores means Windows can work more efficiently. Generally speaking. Personally, I would only buy a laptop or build a PC with a quad, and a real quad, not counting Hyperthreading.
August 8, 2012 6:39:36 AM

Smeg45 said:
Personally, I would only buy a laptop or build a PC with a quad, and a real quad, not counting Hyperthreading.


What, are you saying that my i3 is not a real 4 core? :cry: 
August 8, 2012 6:55:37 AM

amuffin said:
There really is no point!

I'm not sure if you're familiar with power supplies, but it's like spending the extra money for a fully-modular power supply when you HAVE to use the 24Pin ATX and 8 pin CPU connectors.



I'm using C2Q Q6700 :pfff:  , 4-pin cpu header. Power supply's not the case, in desktops, as ihave a cheapo 500watt Chieftec powering cpu, vga and rest of my components.


Coming back to laptops, the power cosumption is not of an big issue aswell, for new technoligies save huge amounts of power.
Heat output is a bigger concern.
A lot of vendors overbuild their laptops, in a manner, that the coolers hardly cool off the quad-core cpu's.
August 8, 2012 7:00:44 AM


Hi 2260121,

I think generalize from the comments above, the number of cores is the number of physical processors, _not_ the number of processors Windows views, i.e. a dual-core i5 processor has 2 physical CPU's, but Windows 7 views it as having _4_ processors, hence capable of handling 4 threads/processors concurrently.

So if your computer has 2 physical cores, then it's a dual core, which with hyperthreading will be seen by the OS as 4 core/4 threads.

So if your computer has 4 physical cores, then it's a quad core, which with hyperthreading will be seen by the OS as 8 core/8 threads.

I think with AMD however, the story is different.


Hope this helps,

Apisorder
August 8, 2012 7:07:10 AM

apisorder said:
Hi 2260121,

I think generalize from the comments above, the number of cores is the number of physical processors, _not_ the number of processors Windows views, i.e. a dual-core i5 processor has 2 physical CPU's, but Windows 7 views it as having _4_ processors, hence capable of handling 4 threads/processors concurrently.

So if your computer has 2 physical cores, then it's a dual core, which with hyperthreading will be seen by the OS as 4 core/4 threads.

So if your computer has 4 physical cores, then it's a quad core, which with hyperthreading will be seen by the OS as 8 core/8 threads.

I think with AMD however, the story is different.


Hope this helps,

Apisorder


I was just kidding when i said that. and btw, amd do not have the hyperthreading feature.
August 8, 2012 7:07:32 AM


Hi raytseng,


I have a question regarding your comment, "So within the same architecture, the highest end processor will be the most battery efficient (but also the most expensive)."

Does this apply to clock speed or number of cores, and if both, which one takes precedence?

Just out of curiosity, which one would you consider buying, if the hardware config is compatible, Apple or Alienware? Why?

Honestly I really wonder, if I would realize much performance gain by upgrading from a dual-core i5 to a quad-core i7 and from a 7200RPM HDD to a SSD, since my system runs quite fast already (I just don't do that much stuff on it, but I am looking to replace it because my parent wants me laptop so I am looking for a replacement.) Would it? (Would Premeire Pro be the only app where I can realize the difference, according to what you said?)



Thanks,

Apisorder
August 8, 2012 7:08:25 AM

apisorder said:
How is it that Apple is able to squeeze a regular quad-core i7 processor in an ultrabook that PC can't, or won't?
I know that Asus, Sony and lenovo all have quad-core i7 processor options and I'm sure there are more. If it took PC a little longer to adopt a quad in an ultrabook it's most likely because they didn't want to have all the overheating issues that apple is so notorious for and they wanted to find a proper solution to the heat issue first. :sol: 
August 8, 2012 7:11:34 AM



Hi Idonno,


This is really going to sound dumb now, but why buy an ultrabook, one that costs more and offers less performance, if not for its lighter weight?


Thanks,

Apisorder
August 8, 2012 7:26:41 AM

apisorder said:
Hi Idonno,


This is really going to sound dumb now, but why buy an ultrabook, one that costs more and offers less performance, if not for its lighter weight?


Thanks,

Apisorder

I personally can see the cool factor but, I wouldn't buy one when you can buy a slightly thicker notebook with better cooling, an optical drive, and many times notebooks have better connectivity. The extra few ounces in weight won't hurt anyone and are well worth the benefits. Of course that's just me. :sol: 

If your interested in Notebooks Asus has a great line. You should check out their site.
August 8, 2012 7:30:27 AM

2260121 said:
What, are you saying that my i3 is not a real 4 core? :cry: 


Yes, it only has two cores, so it isn't a "full" quad core. You won't see a big difference unless you heavily multitask or encode videos or run a few dozen filters in Photoshop, but every extra bit of performance counts.

August 8, 2012 7:31:56 AM


Hi Idonno,

While they are ultrathin, and hence have less open space, are Ultrabooks necessarily poorly ventilated? I heard that Apple has heat dissipation problems, but do Ultrabooks suffer from this too? (Asus, Gigabyte, Sony, Toshiba, etc)

Thanks,


Apisorder
August 8, 2012 7:42:09 AM

Intel has produced a new line of processors specifically to address the heat issue and power consumption (which are closely related) Apple was producing these ultra thin type of notebooks before lintel did this which is probably why they had heat problems.

But to be honest I really don't like talking about Apple I have absolutely no respect for that company or it's products so, I'm definitely not the right person to ask. :sol: 
a b à CPUs
August 8, 2012 8:00:36 AM

I would never dream of running premiere pro on anything less than a quad core.
August 8, 2012 8:05:13 AM


Hi Bwlane,

Believe it or not, even on my 2-year old i5 laptop, with just 8G of RAM, ATI VGA, and just 7200 RPM HDD, it runs fine.

Of course, I am sure an i7, a Nvidia Geforce VGA, or a SSD would make a difference, but yes, it can run and quite smoothly too.


Apisorder
a b à CPUs
August 8, 2012 8:27:30 AM

if you really are using it as a laptop and always in meetings and moving to a different room every few hours or actually having to hold it up and type and going to the airport every few days, yes the extra weight matters.
Ultrabooks have a peak power ceiling, and to meet that you can't stuff in the fastest processors.

However, it is true that many people get an ultrabook as fashion/design though, but there is nothing wrong with that either. Whole industries are based on fashion.


As far as the previous processor efficiency discussion . You need to look at the specific offerings and research, but in this case, the slowest quadcore will use less electrons then the fastest dualcore, and so it should match up with pricing too.
The most expensive processor choice will use the least electrons to do the task.

However, you do need to keep in mind the rest of the laptop is a huge role too; and how efficient is the rest of the laptop: battery, mobo, screen etc etc.
So just take the analysis to mean that choosing slow processor does not mean you are saving battery. At worst they are all about even, at best the more expensive faster processors actually may save a few electrons.


As far as the performance gains. again depends on what tasks you were doing. If you were already smooth, then you have CPU to spare and maybe you shouldn't spend extra money for it.
If you're on the fence, and the money is tight then don't get it. If you can spare it, then splurge.

SSD over HDD though you definitely should do if you have the option and it is within your budget and are not being excessively overcharged for it. I would go for that option over the i5/i7 decision.

August 8, 2012 8:44:57 AM


Hi raytseng,

Is there a scenario where one wouldn't want to replace a 7200 RPM HDD with a speedier SSD, if not for capability limitations or monetary constraints?



Thanks,


Apisorder
a c 184 à CPUs
August 8, 2012 1:53:53 PM

^^

Since you're not the "average" user, you're going to be writing A LOT because of Adobe Premiere, and Photoshop. I'm not sure if you know this or not, but an SSD has limited write cycles, so it's a better choice to get a larger HDD and beef up on the CPU+GPU.
a b à CPUs
August 9, 2012 12:35:11 AM

when the ssd fails, it may tend to take out the whole drive. whereas when an HDD fails, potentially it will fail more gracefully, so you may get warning signs to save data; or at least have the option to take it to specialists for data recovery.

The write leveling issue is not a big deal for a single user, and is overblown. You should expect at least 5years of life, and more likely doubledigit years+. the controller will also track the usage so it will not come out of the blue. Even being used in continuous operation 24/7 by datacenters, they last 1-2years.

In typical actual laptop use, an HDD in service for 5years will also potentially be at danger of failing from physical abuse or it's moving parts, so it's not superior in the durability category either.
I'd actually call it a tie.
More physical ruggedness from no moving parts in exchange for the write endurance issue.
August 9, 2012 12:52:25 AM


Hi amuffin,

I heard of two kinds of limitations on SSD writes.


Are you referring to the number of writes before a secure erase must take place to ensure data security (prevent reaching the 5% bottleneck, at which time the controller may no longer recognize the disk and shut it down, rending total data loss forever)?

Or are you referring to the number of writes in SSD's lifetime? (which is why some software like O&O defrag minimize unnecessary writes to SSD to prolong its lifetime.)

I think the former can be easily dealt with, as long as we periodically backup the SSD contents to a separate disk, secure erase, then recopy the contents back. Once a SSD is shut down, it can only be taken back to the manufacturer for a new one, but there is simply no way to get the data back.

The latter, however, I can't think of a way to deal with it, and, if this is the case you are referring to, then SSD is indeed not ideal for my use. Is this what you are referring to?



Thanks,


Apisorder
August 9, 2012 1:09:56 AM


Hi raytseng,


How does the SSD controller warn the user (me!) about SSD use? (since I haven't been actually using a SSD, I can only imagine :-p)

I asked because I read using different software for S.M.A.R.T. on SSD gives very different data.

Back to HDD, the one installed on my laptop: are there specific software you recommend for evaluating the health of my HDD? I tried some but none is made specifically for a laptop HDD and I found them rather not very useful.

In short, you are saying that SSD has write issues and when it fails it tends to "kill" the whole drive, whereas HDD is physically more durable and when it fails it tend to allow partial data recovery, right? But are you saying that for a single user as myself, even with excessive writes from media productivity (Adobe CS apps) and 24/7 reads/writes from P2P, it doesn't really matter if I use SSD or HDD? (personally I am a little worried about what you said when data centers using SSD 24/7 lasts only 1-2 years.)

Is there a way to make SSD lifetime as long as the HDD, despite very frequent write requirement?


Thanks,


Apisorder
a b à CPUs
August 9, 2012 2:09:14 AM

your fears are misplaced and you are misinterpreting data
1-2years in a datacenter under continous 100% usage is a massive amount of data. Think of it like storing the last 256 or 128gb of the entire internet in a scrolling fashion.
Datacenters have redundancy and no single failure will bring it down and the SSDs are the frontline cache for the real data behind it.

If you are fearing this, you should also note that the rest of your computer also has lifespans too. Your CPU is rated only for about 10-20years of usage. The other parts like screen have lifespans too.

So long story short. Don't worry about your current generation SSD getting "used" up. Lots of people have been punishing their SSD day-in day-out and still have plenty of life left.

If you are interested go ahead and read up on the latest SSD articles for the way different SSD algorithms are setup, but as a USER, nowadays you don't have to do anything for care/feeding of the SSD, it's all automated as long as you followed the basic setup steps. Just get any of the recent SSDs and not some old dusty model from 5years ago; and you will be fine.

If it comes down to it, should you get near the end of your life some years out, you'll probably want a new computer or at least the latest and newest SSD anyway.

If anything, the SSD getting completely used up probably meant it saved you some large chunks of time. Surely all those hours is worth the cost of replacing it.
Otherwise, it is like buying a new car then never using it and continously "saving" it for the future.

It is not like you are sending your laptop to Mars where newegg doesn't deliver. (NASA does need specialized robust equipment just for this reason).

There are tools like ssdlife which will display the statistics from S.M.A.R.T and give you estimate of how much your SSD is "used up" based on each specific SSD model's algorithm and published numbers .
But keep in mind this is just numerical estimates on other magic numbers.
Any drive SSD or HDD could fail at any time, or could last much longer than the estimate even when the counter gets to zero.
a c 101 à CPUs
August 9, 2012 2:20:42 AM

Idonno said:
Intel has produced a new line of processors specifically to address the heat issue and power consumption (which are closely related) Apple was producing these ultra thin type of notebooks before lintel did this which is probably why they had heat problems.

Intel producing (binning) ultra-low-voltage variants for ultraportable/palmtop notebooks and other applications requiring lower-power CPUs dates at least all the way back to the P3-Coppermine days some 13 years ago. Intel's new quest to promote ultrabook is nothing more than Intel's newest spin for churning out ULV-binned chips, this time as a future mainstream option instead of ultraportable devices formerly aimed mainly at and priced mainly for executives and on-the-go professionals.

IBM was making a nice subnotebook about 12 years ago that had a 10-11" 1440x900 screen, ULV P3 CPU and not much larger than an iPad3... way ahead of today's ultrabook fad.
August 9, 2012 2:29:24 AM

Yea, that sounds about right actually. When I see what I wrote I was just basically regurgitating the crap that intel has spread to the media. I really don't like ultrabook style notebooks anyway regardless of what their called or what brand name is on them.
a c 101 à CPUs
August 9, 2012 2:40:59 AM

Idonno said:
I really don't like ultrabook style notebooks anyway

Can't say I like the new spin on the old concept that much either. However, people are getting their small-screen baptism on expensive tablets and smartphones which will likely leave many people yearning for physical keyboards at a modest size, weight and cost penalty over equivalent tablets so I would not be too surprised if the ultrabook respin picked up if prices dropped a few hundred dollars, which might happen next year.
August 9, 2012 3:06:08 AM


Hi InvalidError,


Why are bigger Ultrabooks, like 14" and 15" models, not more common? Most models are 13" or smaller.

With that said, while I can understand buyers of 14" and 15" laptops are usually looking for a desktop replacement, meaning with a regular-voltaged processor and usually a discrete VGA, why are these still 14" and 15" Ultrabook models? I really cannot think of any use for them. True, they don't suffer the performance issues that CULV suffered but they are probably still too heavy for on-the-go and definitely don't offer the performance a desktop replacement can, so what can the targeted market for these larger Ultrabooks?


I also don't understand why Ultrabooks don't normally have a discrete VGA. Is it because of heat dissipation issues?


Thanks,

Apisorder
August 9, 2012 3:11:04 AM


Hi raytseng,


Just to confirm, even if my disk is always 70-80% full, and with about 30% of the entire disk' contents constantly being written to (basically I download gigs of stuff, watched them, and delete them so I can have more space for new ones) on a daily basis, a SSD is still as good as a HDD?

I would think my habit of the laptop this way would use up the write cycles pretty fast. In this case, do you think a HDD will be better?


Thanks,


Apisorder
a c 101 à CPUs
August 9, 2012 3:15:06 AM

apisorder said:
I also don't understand why Ultrabooks don't normally have a discrete VGA. Is it because of heat dissipation issues?

One of Intel's objectives behind their Ultrabook concept is ~8h per charge to compete against tablets that have 8-10h autonomy per charge, which is nearly impossible to match with discrete GPU or a 14" screen without using larger battery packs.

Who would do any amount of remotely serious gaming on a 11" Ultrabook anyway?
a c 101 à CPUs
August 9, 2012 3:17:59 AM

apisorder said:
I would think my habit of the laptop this way would use up the write cycles pretty fast.

What is the write endurance of current NAND flash? Most manufacturers quote at least 100k write-erase cycles.

If you fill your SSD and delete it 10 times per day, 100k cycles is enough to last nearly 30 years.

What I would worry about for SSD wear is swapfile and temporary files such as browser cache which may be rewritten a lot more often.
a b à CPUs
August 9, 2012 3:28:21 AM

yes, i'd still get an SSD, even if you're downloading and watching DVDrips continuously 24/7.

I'd also use it for my swapfile and temp files. That is the ideal purpose of the SSD to have it for quick I/O things. Why people decide to move those to their HDD to me defeats the purpose of having the SSD.

It's your computer, get whatever makes you feel comfortable. But i think it's pretty clear what I'd do, and I'll leave it at that.

August 9, 2012 3:30:13 AM


Hi InvalidError,


Yes, that makes perfect sense. Then there isn't really a purpose in making the 14"/15" models then, which explains why they aren't more common.



Thanks,

Apisorder
August 9, 2012 3:35:01 AM


Hi InvalidError,

I guess ideally if I had a 2-drive laptop, with one SSD and one HDD, I can put the OS and the apps on the former, while the latter be for data storage.

I will also change paths of the swapfile and tem files to the latter drive. I thought SSD eliminates the use of some of these though? (I read that with SSD, tricks that can be done with HDD to speed up the system is not longer necessary when using a SSD)

But honestly it isn't that easy to find a 2-drive laptop (not to mention its price tag).



Thanks,


Apisorder
a c 101 à CPUs
August 9, 2012 4:02:53 AM

apisorder said:
Yes, that makes perfect sense. Then there isn't really a purpose in making the 14"/15" models then, which explains why they aren't more common.

As you said yourself, most people looking at 14+" laptops are looking at desktop-replacement.

Since there are plenty of those in the $300-600 range, a $800 "ultrabook" with worse specs on almost everything except battery life and weight would be a tough sell.

As for SSDs, getting enough RAM to be able to turn swapping off would be one way to go about it as long as you do not need programs that insist on reserving space directly from the swapfile.
August 9, 2012 4:08:31 AM


Hi InvalidError,

"As for SSDs, getting enough RAM to be able to turn swapping off would be one way to go about it as long as you do not need programs that insist on reserving space directly from the swapfile."

Are Adobe programs one of those that insist on reserving space directly from the swapfile? In my knowledge, they are, at least Photoshop does.


Thanks,


Apisorder
a c 101 à CPUs
August 9, 2012 11:56:29 AM

apisorder said:
Are Adobe programs one of those that insist on reserving space directly from the swapfile?

I have not tried running swap-less in years so I have not kept tabs on which applications cause Windows to pop up a notification about creating a swapfile due to an application requiring virtual memory.

One thing Photoshop and other applications that manipulate large files do is allow users to configure a 'scratch' directory where they store temporary files such as undo/redo buffers instead of using RAM/swap for that.
!