• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Are you all ignoring me?

from my experience , dual core cpus are not properly used by todays software which are built for single cores except some who are built for dual cores.

A single core @ high GHZ will do the job and will do it very good.

and all 3700's are excellent OC'ers , most do >2800MHZ

couple it with some 2 GIG ram and youre done
 
Iraklis F.C. said:
from my experience , dual core cpus are not properly used by todays software which are built for single cores except some who are built for dual cores.
Click to expand...

But windows will use dual cores, and that's the point. Just because the application doesn't use dual core, doesn't mean the OS won't. So one process could be loading core 0 at 50%, whilst core 1 50%, rather than 100% in a single core. Imagine lifting up 40kg dumbell (one hand) it's pretty hard. But then use a barbell (both hands) and it's dead easy. Both arms are getting a work out, but generally both arms are working less.
 
mate , from my experience again , if the application is not taking advantage of dual cores it will not function as you describe. Yes windows have dual core capabilities , but most applications dont. So an application wont execute in half the time cause there are 2 cores processing at once , but you will finish your task in half time if you execute two different applications at the same time. but AFAIK not a lot of people do this.

its like application A and application B are running at the same time they will finish faster in a dual core system than in a single core system

but if you run application A only it will not finish faster in a dual core system than in a single core system.

hope you understand what i am sayin , i am not an englishman :D
 
Last edited:
ok I'm starting a shrink of a 7.5GB DVD-Video ISO. Set shrink to not background mode (100%)

Both cores are at 97-100% constant (taskmanager showing 100% for both) There is a bit of slowdown, but machine is still usable in Windows (forums etc) although wouldn't do any more heavy work

Dual Core
Started 23:22
Finshed 23:28
So 6 minutes.

Set shrink afinity to CPU 0. Core 0 at 100%- task manager is showing 100% for core 0, core 1 is still doing something although around the frist line. Windows is not slowing down, as I have core 1 free.

Single Core
Started 23:29
Finished 23:40
11 minutes!

will update finish time

Granted Windows itself is sharing over dual core- but I'm not doing anything else, and the usual 1% CPU windows idle is of little relevence, but shrink itself is being limited to single core.
 
Last edited:
The title is in there, probably frowned upon so better not :p
8 minutes so far and done 73%, so it IS faster, if fully loading both cores. I understand what you're saying though if both are being used 50+50 =50% total for dual core, but if you set it 100+100 = 100% it'll still be faster than a single core 100% =100%
 
Hm interesting...Shame they dont calculate that WHILE your using the pc, ie....while you not doing nefing else OTHER than what your doing now, make both cores work hard, then if u intervine to do something, let one core do less work or somthing? If that makes sense...

Suppose cool n quiet doesnt help much tho does it? lol
 
no doubt it is faster :D when both cores run at 100% for the same single application , but if.

a good example is Cinebench. try to bench firstly rendering 1X cpu benchmark and then with 2X cpus. you will see what i mean. BTW it took my SD 01:13 to complete it (single core mine), yours when rendering 1X cpu how much does it take to complete it?
 
Last edited:
Got 60-80 fps inside and 30-45fps outside.

Results were the exact same with a virus scan running (which used to kill my single core 3400+)

I'll post more scientific results tomorrow if ya need proof, but that's enough for me for tonight :D
 
Cyanide said:
Got 60-80 fps inside and 30-45fps outside.

Results were the exact same with a virus scan running (which used to kill my single core 3400+)

I'll post more scientific results tomorrow if ya need proof, but that's enough for me for tonight :D
Click to expand...
Wowzers, didn't realise it was such a difference. Looks like Dual Core is the way forward then! Not that it wasn't going to be, heh.
 
squiffy said:
Cinebench 9.5

All tests 3 mins 3 seconds
1 CPU - 371 - 1 min 3 seconds
X CPU - 686 - 35 seconds
Multiprocessor speedup 1.84
Click to expand...
thats quite impressive :)

shame i dont have £300 to splash out on an X2 4400 (wouldn't want anything less than 2mb L2 Cache...

off topic, how are the 165 Dual Core Opty's clocking these days?
 
xirokx said:
alternatively is one ferrari better than two?

:)
Click to expand...

Depends on how many people you are trying to transport................

I went from an SD3700 to a X2 4200 and even though I lost 512k cache per core I still noticed windows to be zippier and all round performance rarely drops from optimum.

All those taskbar utilities; windows d/l updates, a/v , nvidia / ati app, wireless card, emails, itunes, etc etc etc all help to make windows go slightly slower - with a decent single core as things are installed and running windows seemingly gets slightly slower and slower for me, but with dual core unless you are doing two intensive things everything flows excellently

I then upgraded from the X2 to the opty 170 in my rig because at the time I got mine thy were deamon oc'ers at a good price and to my mind I wont upgrade cpu again until a major advancement is made because I have easily enough cpu power right now ( or Vista is so horrendously bloated that CPU upgrade is required by early 2007)
 
Last edited:
FrankJH said:
I then upgraded from the X2 to the opty 170 in my rig because at the time I got mine thy were deamon oc'ers at a good price and to my mind I wont upgrade cpu again until a major advancement is made because I have easily enough cpu power right now ( or Vista is so horrendously bloated that CPU upgrade is required by early 2007)
Click to expand...

Dare i ask what happened to your X2 4200+ :P Take it you flogged it :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom