| Page 3 of 4 |
|
|
 Posted: Sat, 5th Jan 2008 07:02 Post subject: |
|
 |
Dual core's are simply better, look at the benchmarks! they are everywhere.
Quad cores are better depending on how many cores get used, I would think
that dual core would be the sweetspot for most home users.
Read not to contradict and confute, nor to believe and take for granted, but to weigh and consider.
To the world you may be one person, but to one person you may be the world.
In all your remembering, remember that you have choices
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 5th Jan 2008 08:12 Post subject: |
|
|
| Martian123 wrote: | Dual core's are simply better, look at the benchmarks! they are everywhere.
Quad cores are better depending on how many cores get used, I would think
that dual core would be the sweetspot for most home users. |
Benchmarks are not good.
Look at the benchmark(3dmarkbs) of the 8600 vs the 7950. Then look at how both card perform in all games. You will understand benchmarks are a pile of steaming bullshit.
 Spoiler: | God make games, and God give us the games. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73214
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Sat, 5th Jan 2008 09:35 Post subject: |
|
|
 Oh my, more wisdom  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nouseforaname
Ãœber-VIP Member
Posts: 21306
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nouseforaname
Ãœber-VIP Member
Posts: 21306
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nouseforaname
Ãœber-VIP Member
Posts: 21306
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat, 5th Jan 2008 12:13 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73214
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Sat, 5th Jan 2008 13:12 Post subject: |
|
|
You are watching a movie, browsing the internets and encoding stuff? YOU ARE NUTS! Pfft, dual core is shit, let's all go to P4!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 5th Jan 2008 13:26 Post subject: |
|
|
| LeoNatan wrote: | | You are watching a movie, browsing the internets and encoding stuff? YOU ARE NUTS! Pfft, dual core is shit, let's all go to P4! |
speaking of P4 (old CPU in general actually) I was using my moms computer, fixing some stuff and was scanning for viruses. Took 6 hours on a 40gig HD. ANd now I will mention she's still using an old as fucking hell AMD XP 1700  Kinda adapted to the speeds and when I came back on my system (x2 4400) it fucking flies. Actually debated on looking for the XP 3200 but the fuckin thing is still close to 100 bucks  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lutzifer
Modzilla
Posts: 12740
Location: ____________________ **** vegan zombie **** GRRAAIIINNSS _______
|
| Posted: Sat, 5th Jan 2008 15:43 Post subject: |
|
|
i dont get it. The guy is complaining about that his system works so good that his cpu's cores never max out? Lets rather have a system like mine where the cpu is thrashed to pieces be everything?
I can pm you my adress and coordinate the hardware exchange if the 100% sign makes you so happy 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 5th Jan 2008 18:44 Post subject: |
|
|
Well I think the point is that your system shouldn't be on overload all the time. If CPU runs at 100% all the time the amount of its heating gets higher and higher thus making the work time of your processor shorter. And the multi core systems are great on servers, or on supercomputer where you aren't playing games, but doing sth useful like calculating some enormous mathematical or physical tasks.
"Quantum mechanics is actually, contrary to it's reputation, unbeliveably simple, once you take the physics out."
Scott Aaronson | chiv wrote: | | thats true you know. newton didnt discover gravity. the apple told him about it, and then he killed it. the core was never found. |

|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 5th Jan 2008 18:53 Post subject: |
|
|
wow if your theory that dual cores are pointless if they don't reach 100% then you sir might as well never upgrade again. We can't even argue with you anymore now cause that was just THEE stupidest thing I've ever heard in my life next to sad personna saying DX10 was available through a patch.
You really need to either 1) School yourself and actually learn something instead of using what BS is in your head or 2) Go to a school and have them teach you.
You know what happens when you try multi-tasking/loading up random software on a single core CPU? It bogs down. It can only have one core processing everything. Scan for viruses while playign a game? Good luck. Defrag while playing a game? Good luck again. Dual cores are meant to take loads off each other, THATS the whole point of it. If your CPU is reaching 100% then that just means the program could use more CPU power to process. If you have the other core helping it then it takes the load off the other CPU giving you room to do other stuff with the remaining unused cpu time.
1 core to process one thing 1 core to process another. It makes everything just that much smoother. If 1 core is busy it offloads that process off to another core decreasing the lag and time it takes it to process. If all you do is browse the internet and email then duh it'll be useless, but that's the only scenerio where it proves useless.
How hard is it to grasp that concept and not that 50% + 50% bullshit you seem to be using. Everyone here know 100%+102% more about hardware than you and your making yourself look silly.
If you don't take the time to actually learn how hardware works especially CPU's why do you even bother building them. Or did you buy some shitty dell thinking it was uberl33t.
And if you use video games to benchmark your CPU then well, end of discussion, you lost.
100% of single core cpu being used = longer load times other stuff being as that CPU has to wait for the CPU to have time to process it.
50% / 50% (by your shitty 3rd grade math thats technically 100% than) than you still have another 50% / 50% free load that isn't stressing your CPU.
Last edited by SpykeZ on Sat, 5th Jan 2008 19:00; edited 2 times in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 5th Jan 2008 18:57 Post subject: |
|
|
| dingo_d wrote: | | Well I think the point is that your system shouldn't be on overload all the time. |
Precisely! Just because it's running at 100% doesn't mean that it's coping with the load. Maybe it needs 120% to run the task. And even if it needs exactly 100% of cpu capacity it means that any other background task will push the cpu over it's cap and the performance of the cpu and the application will suffer.
@TripleNine
Do you have a single or dual-core cpu?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 5th Jan 2008 19:05 Post subject: |
|
|
I thought it would be obvious to anyone that a duel core is about multitasking, not necessarily processing a singular task at a greater rate.
Then again with more programmers taking advantage of the ability to assign different aspects of the same task to different cores it means that a 'singular' task can take advantage of both cores anyway.
I'm sure it's possible to essentially max out both cores with the right allocation software.
"Techniclly speaking, Beta-Manboi didnt inject Burberry_Massi with Benz, he injected him with liquid that had air bubbles in it, which caused benz." - House M.D
"Faith without logic is the same as knowledge without understanding; meaningless"
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nakitu
Posts: 1144
Location: Croatia
|
| Posted: Sat, 5th Jan 2008 19:20 Post subject: |
|
|
| TripleNine wrote: | What is the point to have more than one core if the core never reach more than 50% in the same time?
It doesn't give any advantage, it's what I'm saying. Now they want us to buy 4 core cpu, but the core never use more than 25%.
I wish you could understand what I'm saying. It appear that many understand what I'm saying because they tried all over this thread to prove me the core are used at more than 51% in the mean time.
Core1 + Core2 = dualcore
(if both core use 100% of their possibility, than there is an advantage to have a dualcore)
100% + 100% = 200%
If the core never reach more than 50%
50% + 50% = 100%
OneCore = normal onecore cpu
100% = 100%
(onecore cpu always reach 100%)
|
Dude are you tarded? Task manger spreads all the power it has over amount of cores youre cpu has. So when you use 2 cors at max it showes 100%. If you use one core at max it showes 50% because it has 50% more power at its disposal.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 5th Jan 2008 19:20 Post subject: |
|
|
one core to rule them all...
"Quantum mechanics is actually, contrary to it's reputation, unbeliveably simple, once you take the physics out."
Scott Aaronson | chiv wrote: | | thats true you know. newton didnt discover gravity. the apple told him about it, and then he killed it. the core was never found. |

|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 5th Jan 2008 19:32 Post subject: |
|
|
| dingo_d wrote: | | Well I think the point is that your system shouldn't be on overload all the time. If CPU runs at 100% all the time the amount of its heating gets higher and higher thus making the work time of your processor shorter. And the multi core systems are great on servers, or on supercomputer where you aren't playing games, but doing sth useful like calculating some enormous mathematical or physical tasks. |
This could be a point. I thought about it.
Like when your net connection use at 100% by x-program, if you an other program need net access, it will lag.
Maybe it can work the same for single,dual, but I don't have the hardware to test this.
Still, it doesn't make 4quore useful, even for that purpose.
| Spoiler: | God make games, and God give us the games. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 5th Jan 2008 19:34 Post subject: |
|
|
| SpykeZ wrote: | wow if your theory that dual cores are pointless if they don't reach 100% then you sir might as well never upgrade again. We can't even argue with you anymore now cause that was just THEE stupidest thing I've ever heard in my life next to sad personna saying DX10 was available through a patch.
You really need to either 1) School yourself and actually learn something instead of using what BS is in your head or 2) Go to a school and have them teach you.
You know what happens when you try multi-tasking/loading up random software on a single core CPU? It bogs down. It can only have one core processing everything. Scan for viruses while playign a game? Good luck. Defrag while playing a game? Good luck again. Dual cores are meant to take loads off each other, THATS the whole point of it. If your CPU is reaching 100% then that just means the program could use more CPU power to process. If you have the other core helping it then it takes the load off the other CPU giving you room to do other stuff with the remaining unused cpu time.
1 core to process one thing 1 core to process another. It makes everything just that much smoother. If 1 core is busy it offloads that process off to another core decreasing the lag and time it takes it to process. If all you do is browse the internet and email then duh it'll be useless, but that's the only scenerio where it proves useless.
How hard is it to grasp that concept and not that 50% + 50% bullshit you seem to be using. Everyone here know 100%+102% more about hardware than you and your making yourself look silly.
If you don't take the time to actually learn how hardware works especially CPU's why do you even bother building them. Or did you buy some shitty dell thinking it was uberl33t.
And if you use video games to benchmark your CPU then well, end of discussion, you lost.
100% of single core cpu being used = longer load times other stuff being as that CPU has to wait for the CPU to have time to process it.
50% / 50% (by your shitty 3rd grade math thats technically 100% than) than you still have another 50% / 50% free load that isn't stressing your CPU. |
Ha stfu, the dual core bs is like the sly bs. And since everybody agree with the sly bs, I hardly believe they don't for dualcore.
And quad-core is like the tri-sly bs!
Your a fucking retard!
| Spoiler: | God make games, and God give us the games. |
Last edited by TripleNine on Sat, 5th Jan 2008 19:37; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 5th Jan 2008 19:35 Post subject: |
|
|
| swingman wrote: | | dingo_d wrote: | | Well I think the point is that your system shouldn't be on overload all the time. |
Precisely! Just because it's running at 100% doesn't mean that it's coping with the load. Maybe it needs 120% to run the task. And even if it needs exactly 100% of cpu capacity it means that any other background task will push the cpu over it's cap and the performance of the cpu and the application will suffer.
@TripleNine
Do you have a single or dual-core cpu? |
Well, I stated many times in this thread, I have a dualcore, I poted ss too.
| Spoiler: | God make games, and God give us the games. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 5th Jan 2008 19:37 Post subject: |
|
|
| AnimalMother wrote: | I thought it would be obvious to anyone that a duel core is about multitasking, not necessarily processing a singular task at a greater rate.
Then again with more programmers taking advantage of the ability to assign different aspects of the same task to different cores it means that a 'singular' task can take advantage of both cores anyway.
I'm sure it's possible to essentially max out both cores with the right allocation software. |
And what about quad-core?
The subject of this episode what : Is the quad core useful for something?
| Spoiler: | God make games, and God give us the games. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 5th Jan 2008 19:39 Post subject: |
|
|
| Nakitu wrote: | | TripleNine wrote: | What is the point to have more than one core if the core never reach more than 50% in the same time?
It doesn't give any advantage, it's what I'm saying. Now they want us to buy 4 core cpu, but the core never use more than 25%.
I wish you could understand what I'm saying. It appear that many understand what I'm saying because they tried all over this thread to prove me the core are used at more than 51% in the mean time.
Core1 + Core2 = dualcore
(if both core use 100% of their possibility, than there is an advantage to have a dualcore)
100% + 100% = 200%
If the core never reach more than 50%
50% + 50% = 100%
OneCore = normal onecore cpu
100% = 100%
(onecore cpu always reach 100%)
|
Dude are you tarded? Task manger spreads all the power it has over amount of cores youre cpu has. So when you use 2 cors at max it showes 100%. If you use one core at max it showes 50% because it has 50% more power at its disposal. |
Your a genius, no doubt.
I think Intel is right. I should be evil, and fuck retards like you and get rich. That would be simple.
I'm not sure why I still defend fucking monkeys like you.
| Spoiler: | God make games, and God give us the games. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 5th Jan 2008 20:05 Post subject: |
|
|
Since you don't trust benchmarks, here is a simple way to test for yourself whether having two cores is better than one. Run an application first with two cores running and then run it with one core active. You should be able to notice difference in performance (if any) if it stutters or takes longer to complete.
Here you can find a way to run an application with one core disabled. Note that this only disables the core for the specific application but it continues running any background task so it's not a true representation of running on just one core.
I would test it myself but I have only one core which runs at 100% (and badly) when used with any intensive task.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kosmiq
Posts: 2304
Location: Somewhere
|
| Posted: Sat, 5th Jan 2008 22:27 Post subject: |
|
|
TripleNine have you ever heard of Editing your posts, reply to MORE then ONE previous post in the same reply? Oh well you're too retarded to see how Dual/Quad core can be efficient and good so I guess you're not smart enough...
Behold his GLORY! Bow for the technical master!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nakitu
Posts: 1144
Location: Croatia
|
| Posted: Sat, 5th Jan 2008 22:46 Post subject: |
|
|
| TripleNine wrote: | | Nakitu wrote: | | TripleNine wrote: | What is the point to have more than one core if the core never reach more than 50% in the same time?
It doesn't give any advantage, it's what I'm saying. Now they want us to buy 4 core cpu, but the core never use more than 25%.
I wish you could understand what I'm saying. It appear that many understand what I'm saying because they tried all over this thread to prove me the core are used at more than 51% in the mean time.
Core1 + Core2 = dualcore
(if both core use 100% of their possibility, than there is an advantage to have a dualcore)
100% + 100% = 200%
If the core never reach more than 50%
50% + 50% = 100%
OneCore = normal onecore cpu
100% = 100%
(onecore cpu always reach 100%)
|
Dude are you tarded? Task manger spreads all the power it has over amount of cores youre cpu has. So when you use 2 cors at max it showes 100%. If you use one core at max it showes 50% because it has 50% more power at its disposal. |
Your a genius, no doubt.
I think Intel is right. I should be evil, and fuck retards like you and get rich. That would be simple.
I'm not sure why I still defend fucking monkeys like you. |
Low iq ftl. I work with hardware and software for a living so my guess is i know much more about the topic then you do. But hey in youre pink and fluffy world windows should report that every core has reached its limit by telling you its on 100%. So with 4 cores it should report its on 400%. So when we have 10 cores it should say its on 1000% of usage. GG. I can see how that will make things nice and simple.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WaldoJ
VIP Member
Posts: 32678
|
| Posted: Sun, 6th Jan 2008 00:12 Post subject: |
|
|
Oh look! Santa's back!
Happy Xmas!
| Sin317 wrote: | | I win, you lose. Or Go fuck yourself. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WaldoJ
VIP Member
Posts: 32678
|
| Posted: Sun, 6th Jan 2008 01:33 Post subject: |
|
|
still presents are presents!
I want a pony, a playstation three, a wii, an xbox 360 and all the every games that there are, and I want all the games for my wii and my ds and I want a psp with allllllll the umd movies and a new ipod. coloured black that plays video because i really really really really like t o watch movies on the subway!
| Sin317 wrote: | | I win, you lose. Or Go fuck yourself. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 6th Jan 2008 01:37 Post subject: |
|
|
| WaldoJ wrote: | still presents are presents!
I want a pony, a playstation three, a wii, an xbox 360 and all the every games that there are, and I want all the games for my wii and my ds and I want a psp with allllllll the umd movies and a new ipod. coloured black that plays video because i really really really really like t o watch movies on the subway! |
Get a quad core psp, so you will be able to watch 4 movies in the mean time(in the subway), pretty amazing don't you think?
| Spoiler: | God make games, and God give us the games. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 3 of 4 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
