I know, that sounds like heresy, but, if I'm usually doing one thing at a time ANYWAY (like say, GAMING) will I really see a big difference between the single and dual core processors? Are the dual cores just overall better engineered or do you really need programs that take advantage of it? Thanks.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
Dual Cores Necessary?
- Thread starter Torn
- Start date
Virus scanning on my computer only takes up 3-5% anyway (using mcafee on demand scan), so its hardly going to impact gaming or anything else on a single cpu system, from a cpu resource point of view. Where virus scanning normally impacts games/other apps, is through the constant use of the harddrive, whilst reading in files to check and no amount of cpu cores is going to improve that
EDIT - To the OP, games will eventually start making use of the extra cores, so they will improve the experience when that happens. There are already a few games out now which are multithreaded.
To be honest though since ive had my C2D, the only time i ever see the benefit of the extra core is when encoding movies. Other than that and ive seen almost no benefit at all from moving from a fast single core system.
EDIT - To the OP, games will eventually start making use of the extra cores, so they will improve the experience when that happens. There are already a few games out now which are multithreaded.
To be honest though since ive had my C2D, the only time i ever see the benefit of the extra core is when encoding movies. Other than that and ive seen almost no benefit at all from moving from a fast single core system.
nobody_here
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2006
- Messages
- 8,877
dual cores is better under two basic conditions
1. the operating system is SMP coded, that is to say it can make use of multiple cores simultaneously. in this case the other software you are running doesn't need to be dual core capable, because the operating system (think WinXP or Vista) can assign tasks from two different programs to different affinities or "cores", this also allows faster performance like the above poster mentioned when one wants to run multiple programs at once
2. the software you are running is coded for multi cores itself, like most of the newest games and many of the video encoding programs these days to one extent or another, in this case one program can use both cores to do the work faster
either way, dual core is not a requirement, but at this point, if one were to be in the market for a new CPU, one would be making a very poor buying decision if they didn't get a dual core CPU, it's pretty much the standard now, all of the new and emerging CPU's from AMD and Intel are focusing on dual and quad core technologies, single core is old news
1. the operating system is SMP coded, that is to say it can make use of multiple cores simultaneously. in this case the other software you are running doesn't need to be dual core capable, because the operating system (think WinXP or Vista) can assign tasks from two different programs to different affinities or "cores", this also allows faster performance like the above poster mentioned when one wants to run multiple programs at once
2. the software you are running is coded for multi cores itself, like most of the newest games and many of the video encoding programs these days to one extent or another, in this case one program can use both cores to do the work faster
either way, dual core is not a requirement, but at this point, if one were to be in the market for a new CPU, one would be making a very poor buying decision if they didn't get a dual core CPU, it's pretty much the standard now, all of the new and emerging CPU's from AMD and Intel are focusing on dual and quad core technologies, single core is old news
-(Xyphox)-
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2004
- Messages
- 6,518
Great answer, cant agree more
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2004
- Messages
- 15,022
And to add to what nobody_here said, Even if your game is not multithreaded, you can benefit from dual-core to a certain extend by assigning 1 core 100% to the game and leaving the other to the OS and background applications. This will make the experience much more smoother even if performance isn't always there.
Like others, dual-core and quad-core are the wave of the future and single-cores is being phased out. It make sense to buy a dual-core even if you don't need it right now.
Like others, dual-core and quad-core are the wave of the future and single-cores is being phased out. It make sense to buy a dual-core even if you don't need it right now.
nobody_here
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2006
- Messages
- 8,877
Intel actually only makes Core Solo CPU's for laptops now, you can't even buy a single core "Core" based architecture CPU for a desktop anymore, if you get a single core CPU you are getting a Netburst P4 CPU from Intel or a AMD A64 CPU (non-X2), either of which is going to be noticeably slower than the Core 2 or AMD X2 variants
i went from a single to dual core setup, and while it doesnt break records, it made multitasking much faster, video encoding much quicker, and the ability to encode a DVD and surf the web, and run A/V, etc....all at the same time much quicker, with the single core system, DVD encoding alone was all the system could handle, if you were to have a DVD encoding and even surf the web it would make the encoding take three times as long, but this stopped when i went to dual core
it's all about everything being a little faster in most cases than one thing being much much faster
i went from a single to dual core setup, and while it doesnt break records, it made multitasking much faster, video encoding much quicker, and the ability to encode a DVD and surf the web, and run A/V, etc....all at the same time much quicker, with the single core system, DVD encoding alone was all the system could handle, if you were to have a DVD encoding and even surf the web it would make the encoding take three times as long, but this stopped when i went to dual core
it's all about everything being a little faster in most cases than one thing being much much faster
As with everything, it depends.
If you're building a $500 PC, you definitely don't want to spend an extra $100 for dual core when most likely you won't ever notice a difference.
If it's a $1000 PC, then sure.
I've yet to notice a single instance where my new Opteron behaves faster than my old Athlon 3000+ (at 2.5 GHz). Other than 3DMark06 of course.
If you're building a $500 PC, you definitely don't want to spend an extra $100 for dual core when most likely you won't ever notice a difference.
If it's a $1000 PC, then sure.
I've yet to notice a single instance where my new Opteron behaves faster than my old Athlon 3000+ (at 2.5 GHz). Other than 3DMark06 of course.
A C2D will show improvements over any single core. Even the slowest c2d will show such performance. You will be shooting yourself in the foot if you went and bought a single core system. The price difference is really not that much. Unless you are going for dirt cheap ebay cpus to save a few dollars.
Cause it's like 8 times the work for them to program. Dunno about you, but I don't like work.
Cause it's like 8 times the work for them to program. Dunno about you, but I don't like work.
QFT!
That's interesting; but i've check and recorded my cpu usage during CS:S and both cores are being used, and at about the same percentage/rate; about 40 - 65% if I remember right. This sure indicates that both cores are being used. I can't immagine anything else that's running in the background that would be using this much cpu.
Just finished building my dual core e6600 and have it running side-by-side with my athlon 3500. For every day use , I don't notice much of a difference at all.
Both are using Windows Vista Business. The dual core does not feel snappier, or more responsive at all. Obviously it's better for multitasking and it benchmarks higher, but I can't say it was a huge upgrade whatsoever
Both are using Windows Vista Business. The dual core does not feel snappier, or more responsive at all. Obviously it's better for multitasking and it benchmarks higher, but I can't say it was a huge upgrade whatsoever
nobody_here
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2006
- Messages
- 8,877
you aren't loading them up enough to tell
go download DVD Shrink and install on both PC's
grab a DVD and have Shrink rip it to HDD and see which one is faster
then while they are running try launching Outlook or IE or antivirus program and see how long it takes on the dual core system vs. single core
there are many many review sites which have done the same type tests and have shown considerable improvements
I did have DVD Fab Decrypter then DVD Shrink the same DVD. It was a difference of like 2 mins for the same DVD. Also, why would I want to run an anti-virus program while I'm doing that, it's easier to just run it overnight and not have it slow down my hard drive access, which is the slowest point of a computer these days, anyway
But as I said in my original post "Obviously it's better for multitasking". I have multiple computers anyway and it's just my G/F and I. So, I can just use the spare computer for ripping, etc.
If the application isn't multi-thread that doesn't mean it won't use it. All SMP OSes will use about 50% of each core or cpu. NT 4.0 did that too. What controls the game? the OS does, so it tells what thread to do.
Don't make me post a Sandra screen of my Q6600.
Quad core should be and is faster than a dual core which is precisely my point.
It is pretty simple to verify your statement either way. Go to Windows Task Manager --> Processes tab and look at the Threads column for the steam.exe. If thread count then is >1 with Counterstrike:Source running then is multi threaded application.
I started steam but no games and it has 23 threads in Task Manager.
When I bring up CS:S but do not connect to a server yet, it has 48 threads. That is a whole lot of threads. I think we can safely conclude that Counterstrike:Source is a multithreaded application.
When I bring up CS:S but do not connect to a server yet, it has 48 threads. That is a whole lot of threads. I think we can safely conclude that Counterstrike:Source is a multithreaded application.
HL1 is multhi threaded then. Nobody even knew what a dual core was back then but it loads more then 1 thread.
The threads that are running is not the same thing as a game being able to use dual core processors also known as being multi threaded. The name is kinda miss leading but CS:S does not have true dual core support. Its being added later on.
Even if you wern't going to buy a dual core because you'd think you didn't need it, generally all of the best cpus are dual core. I didn't buy a core 2 duo because it was dual core, I bought it becasue it dominates
QFT!
when you are gaming there might be another several programs and services running. they are called "windows" you antivirus and anti spyware etc will also use some CPU cycles.
you can run server and game at the same time. game and xfire ot teamspeak, when you are loading maps. the hard drive loading uses some CPU in windows. the sound driver uses some CPU etc etc.
you can run server and game at the same time. game and xfire ot teamspeak, when you are loading maps. the hard drive loading uses some CPU in windows. the sound driver uses some CPU etc etc.
I don't really know if it's multi thread or not; what matters is the C2D IS being utilized by CS:S (both cores), whether is hard coded in the game or in XP, doesn't matter that much to me. That was my observation and my point. The C2D is beneficial now!
Even if you wern't going to buy a dual core because you'd think you didn't need it, generally all of the best cpus are dual core. I didn't buy a core 2 duo because it was dual core, I bought it becasue it dominates
well put..
I dont own C2D, but I do have a dual core AMD64 and that CPU at a slower clock than my highest clocking AMD64 singal core is faster all around, "hard coded" or not
Set hl2.exe to only run on one core and see if you see any difference. You won't.
How do I try/do that; force hl2.exe to run on 1 core? I really don't know how.
I believe you can set the affinity in the task manager {alt-tabbing and going to processes) but I am a regular (1500 posts) on the Steam Forums and I assure you, CSS is not using both your cores.
http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5840000&postcount=6
(not me, I can find more if you want)
An update will be released soon, hopefully, but you know how timely Valve is.
Also, even one core of a Core 2 will tear through Source, as someone pointed out all the good CPUs are dual nowadays.
And, a good read on future Source multicore support http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5638300
Ok, I'll bite; any you are correct it seems. But, my original point was that while running source, I'm seeing the benefits of running the C2D, Because, both cores are being used to process something - therefore, there's a benefit to using a C2D. Perhaps the core that's not running CS:S is doing work for my 8800gts, or the steam connection, or whatever.
im not getting into the argument of whether or not hl2 or css can use both cores, but as a gamer who listens to music at the same time, i can tell that dual cores do help, granted my dual core rig is also faster, but if i get a cpu spike my music doesnt jump like it did on my celeron system.
also tabbing in and out of games seems smoother, but this could be speed improvment.
also tabbing in and out of games seems smoother, but this could be speed improvment.