Page 1 of 4 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
ManMountain




Posts: 793

PostPosted: Fri, 4th Jan 2008 14:31    Post subject:
TripleNine wrote:


... is silly like quad core cpu.


You are joking right?
Back to top
TripleNine
Banned



Posts: 84

PostPosted: Fri, 4th Jan 2008 15:52    Post subject:
ManMountain wrote:
TripleNine wrote:


... is silly like quad core cpu.


You are joking right?


Not at all. I've been using a core 2 duo for a while now.

I did a lot of thing, making rar pack, uncompressing rar pack, making xvid or mpeg. Using tons of programs in the same times.

And I nerver saw both of core running at 100% in the same time

So what is the point to have multiple cores on the same cpu if the cores are never used at 100%? (or should I say, use at least at more than 51%)

Quad core is purely useless, to not say dualcore too. Just like sly is a joke, A TOTAL joke.
If we compare P4 with P4-d running at the same frequency, we can't see any performance boots. Same for the AMD.

Dualcore was supposed to get good in the future, they told us, the programmer will make their games/app to run faster on dualcore. We still wait to see this. I did my research about programing for dual-core and I have found out there IS NO programing for dual-core.

I guess on a quad-core, the cpu will use each core at 25% max Rolling Eyes
Just like a dual-core use each core at 50% max.
Rocket science?

100% + 100% = 200%
Just like 1 core + 1 core = 2 core

No here the formula

50% + 50% = 100%
core1 + core2 = dualcore

Here the formula for quadcore

25% + 25% + 25% +25% = 100%
core1 + core2 + core3 + core4= quadcore

Arrow


 Spoiler:
 
Back to top
$en$i
VIP Member



Posts: 3127

PostPosted: Fri, 4th Jan 2008 17:23    Post subject:
Lol, you obviously never used applications with a workload that would have make a good use of a quad or of the processing power of your dual-core.
Try apps like 3d studio max, see the full use of multiple cores for virtualization, Java and databases, and search for multithreaded coding and parallel programming. Smile
Back to top
TripleNine
Banned



Posts: 84

PostPosted: Fri, 4th Jan 2008 17:55    Post subject:
$en$i wrote:
Lol, you obviously never used applications with a workload that would have make a good use of a quad or of the processing power of your dual-core.
Try apps like 3d studio max, see the full use of multiple cores for virtualization, Java and databases, and search for multithreaded coding and parallel programming. Smile


So dual-core is working for 3d-max only?

But what multi threaded coding could be good for? 3d-rendering?
It's been years now since multi-cores are out, and still, nothing use the both core beside 3d-max?



Is 64bit only good for 3d-rendering too?


 Spoiler:
 
Back to top
$en$i
VIP Member



Posts: 3127

PostPosted: Fri, 4th Jan 2008 18:42    Post subject:
It is of use mostly in professional applications for now, from 3D rendering (3d studio max, cinema 4d, etc), video and image editing (adobe premiere, pinnacle studio plus, etc) to servers, data processing and databases.
Basically in every application that is multithreaded and is cpu-dependent. Obviously it has more use right now on a high-end workstation and server that for an average pc user.
Back to top
TripleNine
Banned



Posts: 84

PostPosted: Fri, 4th Jan 2008 19:33    Post subject:
$en$i wrote:
It is of use mostly in professional applications for now, from 3D rendering (3d studio max, cinema 4d, etc), video and image editing (adobe premiere, pinnacle studio plus, etc) to servers, data processing and databases.
Basically in every application that is multithreaded and is cpu-dependent. Obviously it has more use right now on a high-end workstation and server that for an average pc user.


If I understand well, they cannot program something to work on dual core. So if 3d-max work for dual core, it's somehow a magic trick or just a lucky shot because the application use multi-threading.

Since blender do exactly the same thing as 3d-max, it should use both core at 100% when rendering, right?

http://www.blender.org/


I have another question, If I set all my programs affinity to a single core. I should be able to reach the maximum of that core, why it's not the case?

If A + b + C use 50% of the cpu(no affinity set). Then why when a-b-c is set to only one core, the core does not reach 100%?


 Spoiler:
 
Back to top
TripleNine
Banned



Posts: 84

PostPosted: Fri, 4th Jan 2008 19:59    Post subject:
Rendering with blender :



But when I render with blender and use other app, the cpu usage reach more than 50%, sometimes it reached 100%. I think it's the first or second time I see this. Is it what you was meaning? That it is possible to reach more than 50% of core usage by using other app while rendering?


I render this btw:
http://www.eofw.org/bench/


 Spoiler:
 
Back to top
[sYn]
[Moderator] Elitist



Posts: 8374

PostPosted: Fri, 4th Jan 2008 20:35    Post subject:
TripleNine wrote:
ManMountain wrote:
TripleNine wrote:


... is silly like quad core cpu.


You are joking right?


Not at all. I've been using a core 2 duo for a while now.

I did a lot of thing, making rar pack, uncompressing rar pack, making xvid or mpeg. Using tons of programs in the same times.

And I nerver saw both of core running at 100% in the same time

So what is the point to have multiple cores on the same cpu if the cores are never used at 100%? (or should I say, use at least at more than 51%)

Quad core is purely useless, to not say dualcore too. Just like sly is a joke, A TOTAL joke.
If we compare P4 with P4-d running at the same frequency, we can't see any performance boots. Same for the AMD.

Dualcore was supposed to get good in the future, they told us, the programmer will make their games/app to run faster on dualcore. We still wait to see this. I did my research about programing for dual-core and I have found out there IS NO programing for dual-core.

I guess on a quad-core, the cpu will use each core at 25% max Rolling Eyes
Just like a dual-core use each core at 50% max.
Rocket science?

100% + 100% = 200%
Just like 1 core + 1 core = 2 core

No here the formula

50% + 50% = 100%
core1 + core2 = dualcore

Here the formula for quadcore

25% + 25% + 25% +25% = 100%
core1 + core2 + core3 + core4= quadcore

Arrow


You sir.. are a fool!

That is all.
Back to top
TripleNine
Banned



Posts: 84

PostPosted: Fri, 4th Jan 2008 20:40    Post subject:
[sYn] wrote:
TripleNine wrote:
ManMountain wrote:


You are joking right?


Not at all. I've been using a core 2 duo for a while now.

I did a lot of thing, making rar pack, uncompressing rar pack, making xvid or mpeg. Using tons of programs in the same times.

And I nerver saw both of core running at 100% in the same time

So what is the point to have multiple cores on the same cpu if the cores are never used at 100%? (or should I say, use at least at more than 51%)

Quad core is purely useless, to not say dualcore too. Just like sly is a joke, A TOTAL joke.
If we compare P4 with P4-d running at the same frequency, we can't see any performance boots. Same for the AMD.

Dualcore was supposed to get good in the future, they told us, the programmer will make their games/app to run faster on dualcore. We still wait to see this. I did my research about programing for dual-core and I have found out there IS NO programing for dual-core.

I guess on a quad-core, the cpu will use each core at 25% max Rolling Eyes
Just like a dual-core use each core at 50% max.
Rocket science?

100% + 100% = 200%
Just like 1 core + 1 core = 2 core

No here the formula

50% + 50% = 100%
core1 + core2 = dualcore

Here the formula for quadcore

25% + 25% + 25% +25% = 100%
core1 + core2 + core3 + core4= quadcore

Arrow


You sir.. are a fool!

That is all.


Perhaps you can't understand what I said? Isn't rocket science, you know?

If you did, then,Prove me I'm wrong. Show us something that use both core at more than 51%.

Until then, I'm not the fool that buy expensive stuff for nothing(execpt for my core2duo, but I had no choice, they were all multi-core)

And buying something like that and supporting it is 2 kind of foolish action, imo.


 Spoiler:
 
Back to top
nouseforaname
Über-VIP Member



Posts: 21306
Location: Toronto, Canada
PostPosted: Fri, 4th Jan 2008 20:49    Post subject:
TripleNine wrote:
Show us something that use both core at more than 51%.




posted this in another thread a while back, this is playing 1080p x264, you can see that both cores were over 50%


asus z170-A || core i5-6600K || geforce gtx 970 4gb || 16gb ddr4 ram || win10 || 1080p led samsung 27"
Back to top
TripleNine
Banned



Posts: 84

PostPosted: Fri, 4th Jan 2008 21:10    Post subject:
nouseforaname wrote:
TripleNine wrote:
Show us something that use both core at more than 51%.




posted this in another thread a while back, this is playing 1080p x264, you can see that both cores were over 50%


Perhaps your player was buggy. Because I'm playing a 1080p trailer with quicktime and look:


(never more than 50%)

Get this trailer here:
http://www.apple.com/trailers/disney/thechroniclesofnarnia/hd/


 Spoiler:
 
Back to top
Spiderman
Banned



Posts: 5877

PostPosted: Fri, 4th Jan 2008 21:16    Post subject:
TripleNine the magic in more cores is like this, image 1 guy that has to make lets say write a essay , he can make it with 100% efficiency but it would take more time lets say 1 month , 2 guys could do the same in less time (they will do this task in the same time, each taking half of the assignment ) , then imagine 4 cores that have to process this task - yes they will be 25% each because like in the showed example they work together to accomplish the same goal in less time .

So thats how it works dude , and for those applications that show that 2 cores work with 59 - 90% its the sign that you reached those two cores working limit/efficiency .

EDit: as it was showed nouseforaname Amd X2 processor is less efficient then TripleNines DualCore, how to explain this to you , image two stoned dudes that have to make the essay - they will do it less efficient and take more usage lets say 70% , then 2 Aces that take lets say those 50% and do the task in less time


Last edited by Spiderman on Fri, 4th Jan 2008 21:23; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
[sYn]
[Moderator] Elitist



Posts: 8374

PostPosted: Fri, 4th Jan 2008 21:21    Post subject:
TripleNine wrote:
Perhaps you can't understand what I said? Isn't rocket science, you know?

If you did, then,Prove me I'm wrong. Show us something that use both core at more than 51%.

Until then, I'm not the fool that buy expensive stuff for nothing(execpt for my core2duo, but I had no choice, they were all multi-core)

And buying something like that and supporting it is 2 kind of foolish action, imo.


Indeed, I know nothing about CPU design or hardware or Intel.. nothing at all.. Its not my job or anything.. Rolling Eyes
Back to top
Spiderman
Banned



Posts: 5877

PostPosted: Fri, 4th Jan 2008 21:25    Post subject:
[sYn] wrote:
TripleNine wrote:
Perhaps you can't understand what I said? Isn't rocket science, you know?

If you did, then,Prove me I'm wrong. Show us something that use both core at more than 51%.

Until then, I'm not the fool that buy expensive stuff for nothing(execpt for my core2duo, but I had no choice, they were all multi-core)

And buying something like that and supporting it is 2 kind of foolish action, imo.


Indeed, I know nothing about CPU design or hardware or Intel.. nothing at all.. Its not my job or anything.. Rolling Eyes

Syn my explanation should be enough for him to understand how cores work
Back to top
[sYn]
[Moderator] Elitist



Posts: 8374

PostPosted: Fri, 4th Jan 2008 21:27    Post subject:
I did enjoy the simplicity of your explanation Blue Wink! I simply choose to not bother explaining things like this and stick to annoying arrogance!
Back to top
TripleNine
Banned



Posts: 84

PostPosted: Fri, 4th Jan 2008 21:34    Post subject:
BlueSkyz wrote:
TripleNine the magic in more cores is like this, image 1 guy that has to make lets say write a essay , he can make it with 100% efficiency but it would take more time lets say 1 month , 2 guys could do the same in less time (they will do this task in the same time, each taking half of the assignment ) , then imagine 4 cores that have to process this task - yes they will be 25% each because like in the showed example they work together to accomplish the same goal in less time .

So thats how it works dude , and for those applications that show that 2 cores work with 59 - 90% its the sign that you reached those two cores working limit/efficiency .

EDit: as it was showed nouseforaname Amd X2 processor is less efficient then TripleNines DualCore, how to explain this to you , image two stoned dudes that have to make the essay - they will do it less efficient and take more usage lets say 70% , then 2 Aces that take lets say those 50% and do the task in less time


The work is not accomplish in less time with dual core. If you take a single core P4 and compare it to a dual-core P4D at the same frequency, there is no difference in the result.

It is the same for the AMD cpu, there is no difference in the final result between single and dual.

For nouseforaname, before saying it work with X2 cpu, I would like to know what player he was using. Did he try with the quicktime player?


 Spoiler:
 
Back to top
nouseforaname
Über-VIP Member



Posts: 21306
Location: Toronto, Canada
PostPosted: Fri, 4th Jan 2008 21:35    Post subject:
BlueSkyz wrote:
EDit: as it was showed nouseforaname Amd X2 processor is less efficient then TripleNines DualCore, how to explain this to you , image two stoned dudes that have to make the essay - they will do it less efficient and take more usage lets say 70% , then 2 Aces that take lets say those 50% and do the task in less time


Laughing but you're right, and the performance difference between AMD dual core and Intel is quite obvious Wink


asus z170-A || core i5-6600K || geforce gtx 970 4gb || 16gb ddr4 ram || win10 || 1080p led samsung 27"
Back to top
TripleNine
Banned



Posts: 84

PostPosted: Fri, 4th Jan 2008 21:36    Post subject:
[sYn] wrote:
TripleNine wrote:
Perhaps you can't understand what I said? Isn't rocket science, you know?

If you did, then,Prove me I'm wrong. Show us something that use both core at more than 51%.

Until then, I'm not the fool that buy expensive stuff for nothing(execpt for my core2duo, but I had no choice, they were all multi-core)

And buying something like that and supporting it is 2 kind of foolish action, imo.


Indeed, I know nothing about CPU design or hardware or Intel.. nothing at all.. Its not my job or anything.. Rolling Eyes


You mean you don't want to loose it? I understand that. But from my side, I'm piss to pay for stuff that give nothing. Especially when they don't give us the choice at some point. Now what, no more better cpu? They just add more core until they figure out a new tech? Mean while they drive the Lamborghini with my cash?


 Spoiler:
 
Back to top
TripleNine
Banned



Posts: 84

PostPosted: Fri, 4th Jan 2008 21:37    Post subject:
nouseforaname wrote:
BlueSkyz wrote:
EDit: as it was showed nouseforaname Amd X2 processor is less efficient then TripleNines DualCore, how to explain this to you , image two stoned dudes that have to make the essay - they will do it less efficient and take more usage lets say 70% , then 2 Aces that take lets say those 50% and do the task in less time


Laughing but you're right, and the performance difference between AMD dual core and Intel is quite obvious Wink


Did you try with the quicktime player?


 Spoiler:
 
Back to top
nouseforaname
Über-VIP Member



Posts: 21306
Location: Toronto, Canada
PostPosted: Fri, 4th Jan 2008 21:38    Post subject:
TripleNine wrote:
For nouseforaname, before saying it work with X2 cpu, I would like to know what player he was using. Did he try with the quicktime player?


that was with MPC (so not using the hardware accelleration of my gfx card) ... not at home right now, but I could always give it a spin later on. maybe I'll try playing a 1080p movie on my HDTV while using firefox on the other monitor while also downloading in the background ... that should be a decent test Razz

oh, I just replaced my cpu from an AMD 64 3200+ which couldn't play 1080p worth shit Wink


asus z170-A || core i5-6600K || geforce gtx 970 4gb || 16gb ddr4 ram || win10 || 1080p led samsung 27"
Back to top
[sYn]
[Moderator] Elitist



Posts: 8374

PostPosted: Fri, 4th Jan 2008 21:50    Post subject:
TripleNine wrote:
[sYn] wrote:
TripleNine wrote:
Perhaps you can't understand what I said? Isn't rocket science, you know?

If you did, then,Prove me I'm wrong. Show us something that use both core at more than 51%.

Until then, I'm not the fool that buy expensive stuff for nothing(execpt for my core2duo, but I had no choice, they were all multi-core)

And buying something like that and supporting it is 2 kind of foolish action, imo.


Indeed, I know nothing about CPU design or hardware or Intel.. nothing at all.. Its not my job or anything.. Rolling Eyes


You mean you don't want to loose it? I understand that. But from my side, I'm piss to pay for stuff that give nothing. Especially when they don't give us the choice at some point. Now what, no more better cpu? They just add more core until they figure out a new tech? Mean while they drive the Lamborghini with my cash?


The simple fact is, you don't understand the technology yet you are jumping around complaining about it. Do you even know what technology the core2duo uses? The fact that you are comparing it to a P4 which uses a completely different CPU architecture is laughable.. The P4 under performs by a HUGE margin against a core2duo.. lets take this handy benchmarking website as a pretty obvious example of that..

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html - see any example here as toms hardware doesn't allow hot linking

I should hope I don't need to continue to explain the reason for "windows task manager" (clearly the most reliable way to check a CPU's load) only showing half usage most of the time..

Ok, now onto Intel and there lamborghini expenditure.. Out of Intel's 66 thousand employees .. almost 15% of those employees are dedicated soley to R&D.. There is also the fact that the desktop CPU market is Intel's lowest earning market out of every technology they design.


Last edited by [sYn] on Fri, 4th Jan 2008 22:01; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢



Posts: 73194
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
PostPosted: Fri, 4th Jan 2008 21:56    Post subject:
Sad Where do all those think-they-know-it-all-but-don't-know-shit idiots come from? And why do you guys even bother to argue with them? Neutral
Back to top
[sYn]
[Moderator] Elitist



Posts: 8374

PostPosted: Fri, 4th Jan 2008 22:00    Post subject:
LeoNatan wrote:
Sad Where do all those think-they-know-it-all-but-don't-know-shit idiots come from? And why do you guys even bother to argue with them? Neutral


He drew me in with talks of rich Intel employee's... Oh I dream of the days..
Back to top
Spiderman
Banned



Posts: 5877

PostPosted: Fri, 4th Jan 2008 22:08    Post subject:
TripleNine wrote:
BlueSkyz wrote:
TripleNine the magic in more cores is like this, image 1 guy that has to make lets say write a essay , he can make it with 100% efficiency but it would take more time lets say 1 month , 2 guys could do the same in less time (they will do this task in the same time, each taking half of the assignment ) , then imagine 4 cores that have to process this task - yes they will be 25% each because like in the showed example they work together to accomplish the same goal in less time .

So thats how it works dude , and for those applications that show that 2 cores work with 59 - 90% its the sign that you reached those two cores working limit/efficiency .

EDit: as it was showed nouseforaname Amd X2 processor is less efficient then TripleNines DualCore, how to explain this to you , image two stoned dudes that have to make the essay - they will do it less efficient and take more usage lets say 70% , then 2 Aces that take lets say those 50% and do the task in less time


The work is not accomplish in less time with dual core. If you take a single core P4 and compare it to a dual-core P4D at the same frequency, there is no difference in the result.

It is the same for the AMD cpu, there is no difference in the final result between single and dual.

For nouseforaname, before saying it work with X2 cpu, I would like to know what player he was using. Did he try with the quicktime player?

One of my friends has his own definition of dualcore "1 guy equals 1 processor that can use his multitasking skills - Fap and watch Porn , 2 core equals 2 guys that can - fap and watch Porn together but if they watch this together they do a fap contest who will shoot on the tv first , but if they had a lady with them read this application had some kinda dual pen..core usage then it would be more efficient "
Back to top
TripleNine
Banned



Posts: 84

PostPosted: Fri, 4th Jan 2008 22:08    Post subject:
nouseforaname wrote:
TripleNine wrote:
For nouseforaname, before saying it work with X2 cpu, I would like to know what player he was using. Did he try with the quicktime player?


that was with MPC (so not using the hardware accelleration of my gfx card) ... not at home right now, but I could always give it a spin later on. maybe I'll try playing a 1080p movie on my HDTV while using firefox on the other monitor while also downloading in the background ... that should be a decent test Razz

oh, I just replaced my cpu from an AMD 64 3200+ which couldn't play 1080p worth shit Wink


I was playing 1080p with a AMD 2900 athlon.


 Spoiler:
 
Back to top
Spiderman
Banned



Posts: 5877

PostPosted: Fri, 4th Jan 2008 22:12    Post subject:
TripleNine wrote:
nouseforaname wrote:
TripleNine wrote:
For nouseforaname, before saying it work with X2 cpu, I would like to know what player he was using. Did he try with the quicktime player?


that was with MPC (so not using the hardware accelleration of my gfx card) ... not at home right now, but I could always give it a spin later on. maybe I'll try playing a 1080p movie on my HDTV while using firefox on the other monitor while also downloading in the background ... that should be a decent test Razz

oh, I just replaced my cpu from an AMD 64 3200+ which couldn't play 1080p worth shit Wink


I was playing 1080p with a AMD 2900 athlon.

if you turn on hardware acceleration you can run those HD movies even on a this processor
Back to top
TripleNine
Banned



Posts: 84

PostPosted: Fri, 4th Jan 2008 22:12    Post subject:
[sYn] wrote:
TripleNine wrote:
[sYn] wrote:


Indeed, I know nothing about CPU design or hardware or Intel.. nothing at all.. Its not my job or anything.. Rolling Eyes


You mean you don't want to loose it? I understand that. But from my side, I'm piss to pay for stuff that give nothing. Especially when they don't give us the choice at some point. Now what, no more better cpu? They just add more core until they figure out a new tech? Mean while they drive the Lamborghini with my cash?


The simple fact is, you don't understand the technology yet you are jumping around complaining about it. Do you even know what technology the core2duo uses? The fact that you are comparing it to a P4 which uses a completely different CPU architecture is laughable.. The P4 under performs by a HUGE margin against a core2duo.. lets take this handy benchmarking website as a pretty obvious example of that..

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html - see any example here as toms hardware doesn't allow hot linking

I should hope I don't need to continue to explain the reason for "windows task manager" (clearly the most reliable way to check a CPU's load) only showing half usage most of the time..

Ok, now onto Intel and there lamborghini expenditure.. Out of Intel's 66 thousand employees .. almost 15% of those employees are dedicated soley to R&D.. There is also the fact that the desktop CPU market is Intel's lowest earning market out of every technology they design.


I think you don't understand what I said.

I compare a P4 single core with a P4 dualcore (P4-D)
I don't compare a P4 with a core 2 duo.
And I compare a AMD single core with a AMD dual core of the same architecture.



Quote:
yet you are jumping around complaining about it


No the fact is, You say dual core has better performance but you can't prove it.


 Spoiler:
 
Back to top
TripleNine
Banned



Posts: 84

PostPosted: Fri, 4th Jan 2008 22:17    Post subject:
BlueSkyz wrote:
TripleNine wrote:
BlueSkyz wrote:
TripleNine the magic in more cores is like this, image 1 guy that has to make lets say write a essay , he can make it with 100% efficiency but it would take more time lets say 1 month , 2 guys could do the same in less time (they will do this task in the same time, each taking half of the assignment ) , then imagine 4 cores that have to process this task - yes they will be 25% each because like in the showed example they work together to accomplish the same goal in less time .

So thats how it works dude , and for those applications that show that 2 cores work with 59 - 90% its the sign that you reached those two cores working limit/efficiency .

EDit: as it was showed nouseforaname Amd X2 processor is less efficient then TripleNines DualCore, how to explain this to you , image two stoned dudes that have to make the essay - they will do it less efficient and take more usage lets say 70% , then 2 Aces that take lets say those 50% and do the task in less time


The work is not accomplish in less time with dual core. If you take a single core P4 and compare it to a dual-core P4D at the same frequency, there is no difference in the result.

It is the same for the AMD cpu, there is no difference in the final result between single and dual.

For nouseforaname, before saying it work with X2 cpu, I would like to know what player he was using. Did he try with the quicktime player?

One of my friends has his own definition of dualcore "1 guy equals 1 processor that can use his multitasking skills - Fap and watch Porn , 2 core equals 2 guys that can - fap and watch Porn together but if they watch this together they do a fap contest who will shoot on the tv first , but if they had a lady with them read this application had some kinda dual pen..core usage then it would be more efficient "


So if I understand well, it's totally useless to have a better fap because you need to be 2 watching the porn. And since this kind of need is pretty rare, dual-core is useless for 99% of the ppl. It is good if you want to watch 2 movies in the same time for example, something that nobody ever does. I must admit dual-monitor is getting popular.


 Spoiler:
 
Back to top
SpykeZ




Posts: 23710

PostPosted: Fri, 4th Jan 2008 22:41    Post subject:
TripleNine wrote:
BlueSkyz wrote:
TripleNine the magic in more cores is like this, image 1 guy that has to make lets say write a essay , he can make it with 100% efficiency but it would take more time lets say 1 month , 2 guys could do the same in less time (they will do this task in the same time, each taking half of the assignment ) , then imagine 4 cores that have to process this task - yes they will be 25% each because like in the showed example they work together to accomplish the same goal in less time .

So thats how it works dude , and for those applications that show that 2 cores work with 59 - 90% its the sign that you reached those two cores working limit/efficiency .

EDit: as it was showed nouseforaname Amd X2 processor is less efficient then TripleNines DualCore, how to explain this to you , image two stoned dudes that have to make the essay - they will do it less efficient and take more usage lets say 70% , then 2 Aces that take lets say those 50% and do the task in less time


The work is not accomplish in less time with dual core. If you take a single core P4 and compare it to a dual-core P4D at the same frequency, there is no difference in the result.

It is the same for the AMD cpu, there is no difference in the final result between single and dual.

For nouseforaname, before saying it work with X2 cpu, I would like to know what player he was using. Did he try with the quicktime player?


Wow, you know as much about hardware as you do about my shoe size. Laughing

Even if a game doesn't use the other core, the background STILL has the other core to offload other shit off to. It's not about getting shit done faster, it's about multi-tasking without having to worry about the CPU getting overwhelmed.


Back to top
TripleNine
Banned



Posts: 84

PostPosted: Fri, 4th Jan 2008 22:50    Post subject:
SpykeZ wrote:
TripleNine wrote:
BlueSkyz wrote:
TripleNine the magic in more cores is like this, image 1 guy that has to make lets say write a essay , he can make it with 100% efficiency but it would take more time lets say 1 month , 2 guys could do the same in less time (they will do this task in the same time, each taking half of the assignment ) , then imagine 4 cores that have to process this task - yes they will be 25% each because like in the showed example they work together to accomplish the same goal in less time .

So thats how it works dude , and for those applications that show that 2 cores work with 59 - 90% its the sign that you reached those two cores working limit/efficiency .

EDit: as it was showed nouseforaname Amd X2 processor is less efficient then TripleNines DualCore, how to explain this to you , image two stoned dudes that have to make the essay - they will do it less efficient and take more usage lets say 70% , then 2 Aces that take lets say those 50% and do the task in less time


The work is not accomplish in less time with dual core. If you take a single core P4 and compare it to a dual-core P4D at the same frequency, there is no difference in the result.

It is the same for the AMD cpu, there is no difference in the final result between single and dual.

For nouseforaname, before saying it work with X2 cpu, I would like to know what player he was using. Did he try with the quicktime player?


Wow, you know as much about hardware as you do about my shoe size. Laughing

Even if a game doesn't use the other core, the background STILL has the other core to offload other shit off to. It's not about getting shit done faster, it's about multi-tasking without having to worry about the CPU getting overwhelmed.


Brillant! Don't you know that most game don't use the cpu(single core) at 100% beside while loading?

I like squirrel btw. here a peanut


 Spoiler:
 
Back to top
Page 1 of 4 All times are GMT + 1 Hour
NFOHump.com Forum Index - The Useless Void Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)  


Display posts from previous:   

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group