how are 2x/4x cores rateds?

It doesn't work like that. A 2.4Ghz quad added up would total 9.6ghz but its not 9.6ghz. It just has 4, 2.4ghz chips to divide the actual tasks up.......
Precisely.

Man some people on this board really surprise me with both their lack of knowledge and unrestrainable impulse to hit the submit reply button.

There is very little in the way of software yet that has been written to take full advantage of dual core cpu's without even thinking about the quads. I think Folding and other number crunching programmes may be the only programmes right now that are optimised for quad core, it's been a while since I looked so things may have been released lately I guess.
 
So dual core is basically the same thing? If I have a 2.6GHz Dual Core CPU, overall performance is 5.2 GHz?

Okay I really don't know how to explain this. Okay I picked a older game that is based on older technology. You'll see i've circled the CPU speeds. My actual speed is 3.52ghz but the performance is rated at 10.05ghz. You see the minimum spec's for this game are 1.7ghz.

So what I imagine they did was take a 1.7ghz chip that is the minimum requirments for the game and run some number crunchers then analized my cpu and did some number crunching with it. Then they give a rated speed for my newer technology based on the older technology.

My cpu is not 10.05ghz but compared to the tested chip its the equivlant to the 1.7Ghz chip running 10.05Ghz. If my chip was 10ghz it would first be a world record and 2nd it would destroy current quad cores.

If you pick a new game based on the new tech you'll notice it does not have a rated performance ratio because the games new and designed for new hardware.

RatedPerformance.jpg


You see games/apps need to be designed to make use of multiple processors. If a program can only use 1 core then the other core will be used for the desktop and the other core will be used for the app/game. So you see its not actually a higher speed because your only using that one core. If its designed for 2 or 4 cores it can be 2,4 X's faster because you can use all the processing on each core to handle the task.

Its not really a higher overall clock its just each core is able to work at the rate of 2.4ghz per core on say the Q6600. If each core was clocked at 3.0Ghz then it would be able to do much more work because its running faster and can calculate more info.
 
hurm.... interesting range of knowledge.

Example:
P4 3.0GHZ
Core 2 Duo 3.0GHZ


The Core 2 Duos are faster, yes.
Because you have 6GHZ of processing power? no


The reason the core 2's [and x2s] are faster in 80% of current apps compared to older processors is the fact that the processor architecture is more efficient, the FSB is higher, and there is MUCH more onboard cache.

now, on something optimized for dual/quad cores, then you have the added bonus of essentially multiple proccessors working on the same task.


now, 80% of apps [and ~90% of games] are SINGLE threaded, meaning that they cant make use of the second/third/fourth core, because the apps arent coded for it.


the most a single thread app will use in terms of CPU usage is 50%, that 50% might be spread over the two cores, but it is still only HALF of the avaible processor cycles. BUT, you have the other HALF to run other stuff.



so no, quad core isnt the CPU of choice for the average person, they are extremely expensive compared the the the core 2 duos, and most people will never use the 3/4th cores. Now if you plan on doing stuff that can take advantage of the 3/4th cores, then yes, its amazing. but i have NEVER maxed my core 2 duo 2.0ghz unless im trying to. playing Bioshock with all the settings cranked @ max res while ripping a DVD in the background and doing large file transfers nets me ~ 80% CPU usage and 50+FPS in bioshock.
 
well first off bioshock is optimized for dual and quad core (the 360 even has 3 cores) and id say quad core is the cpu of choice right now
even for the average gamer
because its going to last very long
a intel core 2 qaud with a mb that support 8g ram and upgrading the video card one a year will make the system last a good long ass time
 
the beta, which is the last time i played, didnt. it looks like it does now. and upcoming games are going to support dual cores. not many will support quad cores, but quads are sweet, no doubt.

and the average gamer would have no need for a quad core, they would never use the extra cycles, you have to be running some intensive shit to hit full utilization on a quad, which means high end gaming, or 3d modeling or something along those lines.
 
It's a speed per core. You can't add them up to create one, nor can it be combined. It is always 3GHZ, but will multitask better and can process 4 apps at 3GHZ before being slowed down.
 
I was still thinking about the overall affect on frequency. Although it's not a combined total of a bunch of 2.4GHz grouped together (totaling 9.6GHz for the Q6600), but each core that are actually "utilized" can use up to 2.4 GHz each depending on how much CPU cycle apps use.
 
Luda, 3D Modelling is the reason I got my Quad, mainly :p Rendering is sure CPU intensive!
My student licence has gone now though, or well, can't use it legally should I say, since I don't go university anymore, so I may have to shell out for one.
Expensive, but I'll use it a lot, so probably worth it.

2 grand, compared to under 100 quid when your a student, ha.
Does allow you to sell your work though, and your free to upgrade also, which the student version disallows.

Since 3D Studio Max 2008 is coming out soon, if I buy Max 9 apparently now, I get $500 off, and an upgrade for 2008 free.

Though, I may download Maya Personal Learning Edition, as Maya may be better for me, I don't know...hmm...

Anyhow, sorry, gone off subject here.
More power is better, and since the quad core only costs around 40 quid more, its worth going to in my opinion.
 
Back
Top Bottom