Multicore Advantages - What are They?

[rjd]

Hi All

I'm not a hard core gamer, so what advantages would I get from upgrading to a multicore CPU system?

Would existing software be able to use more than one core and run faster?

Thanks for your help.

 

[ChrisD.]

What software do you use?

 

[kirkster]

Applications run brilliantly if they are designed with multicore in mind.
Steve

 

[rjd]

That's my point.

I don't use any software designed for multicore.

So would the extra cores just be there and unused?

Why dosen't the multicore CPU handle what is processed by each core so that all software would run faster?

 

[Priapus]

Hi,

I've just gone from an old AMD 754 to a E6300 Core 2 Duo. Clocked it to 2Ghz. At this point in time I am converting a video, listening to music, got MSN, IE7 open and my Nokia software. This pc isn't slowing down at all. Not even the slightest. With my AMD, just the video converting would bring the system to a halt!

Seriously..multi core is the way to go!

 

[rjd]

Hi Ice On Fire

So, if I run two or more programs at the same time, the multicore CPU would use a separate core for each program (even if the program is not designed for multicore)?

Is that correct?

 

[Priapus]

Yes.

I was using nero and ConvertX. One program used one core, the other used the second core. The pc didn't even slow down at all. On my AMD, I would be waiting for nero to open and would have a waiting time of 2hrs for the ConvertX to finish. Just after typing this sentence, both programs finished in 15 minutes. Really am impressed here.

First time in three days actually using the system...very very happy.

 

[rjd]

Hi Ice On Fire

Great, that's the clarification I was looking for.

I will now start to spec my new upgraded PC.

Thanks for your help.

 

[Corasik]

There is always a small benifit even if all your doing is running a single application... Remember windows itself is always running a dozen or more 'background' tasks, with a dual core system, these tasks wont take cpu power away from the game.

Windows will generaly feel more responsive when running cpu heavy applications etc.

 

[FrankJH]

Between Windows and anti-virus/firewall thats effectively one core used

I fully admit to only using a few standard apps (MSN, IE, a game) and even a quad core makes Windows run far more smoothly than even a dual core

Im not suggesting you get a quad straight away, all Im saying is that a dual core is a must these days when you consider Nvidia/ATI settings app , HD Audio settings, webcam if you have one all sitting in the task manager

 

[Corasik]

Between Windows and anti-virus/firewall thats effectively one core used

Well, I wouldnt say it goes as far as using an entire core.... But on average I would guess that the second core sits around 10-15% utilization when running windows + a lightly threaded game. (Yes even older games were threaded.. but generally 99% of older games runtime is a single 3d graphics engine thread).

But thats still cpu time that would be stolen from the graphics thread on a single core system.

The more you multitask, the more benifits you get from multicore even with older applications, and of course the future will be fully threaded graphics engines which make full use of as many cores as you have. It will probably be a while before we see a graphics engine like this, as its a lot of difficult programming.. but I have no doubt it will happen.

 

[pegasus1]

My system in spec was converting and encoding two seperate DVDs at the same time whilst i was watching telly on my Freeview PCi card with no slowdown and miles quicker than my 3700SD could have drempt of.

 

[caithomas44]

well for me i use ARCGIS for university which once you are starting to make some huge GIS models and maps a quad core with lots of ram really starts to help

oh and it does help with multi core enabled games like crysis

 

[FrankJH]

Well, I wouldnt say it goes as far as using an entire core.... But on average I would guess that the second core sits around 10-15% utilization when running windows + a lightly threaded game. (Yes even older games were threaded.. but generally 99% of older games runtime is a single 3d graphics engine thread).

But thats still cpu time that would be stolen from the graphics thread on a single core system.

The more you multitask, the more benifits you get from multicore even with older applications, and of course the future will be fully threaded graphics engines which make full use of as many cores as you have. It will probably be a while before we see a graphics engine like this, as its a lot of difficult programming.. but I have no doubt it will happen.

I see what you are getting at and I agree .... all I was meaning is that while Windows and A/v (and other taskbar utilities) run on one core - there is a whole other core for what you actually want to do

I did however notice a significant change in windows operation with really only one major app (game) running moving from a Core2Duo to a Core2Quad (with the C2Q being at a slower speed) in benefit to the C2Q

 

[The Asgard]

I would recommend a dual core over a single core, quad takes a lot more justification. I have just downgraded from a Quad Core @ 3.2 to a dual at 3.6 and in all honesty 3.6 feels a tad faster in the OS. The main bottleneck on the OS is now the disk subsystem with fast processors its the law of diminishing returns now.

 

[Vimes]

I would recommend a dual core over a single core, quad takes a lot more justification. I have just downgraded from a Quad Core @ 3.2 to a dual at 3.6 and in all honesty 3.6 feels a tad faster in the OS. The main bottleneck on the OS is now the disk subsystem with fast processors its the law of diminishing returns now.

Why did you change from a quad to a dual, was it simply the core clock speed that could be gained or were there other reasons...?