|
Page 1 of 4 |
|
Posted: Fri, 4th Jan 2008 14:31 Post subject: |
|
 |
TripleNine wrote: |
... is silly like quad core cpu. |
You are joking right?
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
Posted: 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
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

Spoiler: | God make games, and God give us the games. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
$en$i
VIP Member
Posts: 3127
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
$en$i
VIP Member
Posts: 3127
|
Posted: 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 |
|
 |
|
Posted: 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: | God make games, and God give us the games. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
[sYn]
[Moderator] Elitist
Posts: 8374
|
Posted: 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
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
 |
You sir.. are a fool!
That is all.
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
Posted: 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
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
 |
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: | God make games, and God give us the games. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
nouseforaname
Über-VIP Member
Posts: 21306
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
Posted: 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
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
[sYn]
[Moderator] Elitist
Posts: 8374
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
Posted: 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: | God make games, and God give us the games. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
nouseforaname
Über-VIP Member
Posts: 21306
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
Posted: 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..  |
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: | God make games, and God give us the games. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
nouseforaname
Über-VIP Member
Posts: 21306
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
[sYn]
[Moderator] Elitist
Posts: 8374
|
Posted: 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..  |
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 🇮🇱
|
Posted: Fri, 4th Jan 2008 21:56 Post subject: |
|
 |
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? 
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
[sYn]
[Moderator] Elitist
Posts: 8374
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
Posted: 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 |
|
 |
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
Posted: 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: | God make games, and God give us the games. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
Posted: 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.
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 |
|
 |
|
Posted: 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.
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: | God make games, and God give us the games. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Page 1 of 4 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
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
|
|
 |
|