Prev: Is my new power supply DOA? Am I missing something here?
Next: Surge / Ground / Lightning
From: Shadow36 on 6 May 2008 18:44

"JAT23" <JeffTaylor1985(a)gmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:TKCdnX4Uvv6JVr3VnZ2dnUVZ_h-vnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> > GUEST wrote:
> > I guess the number of cores isn't really the issue, the same
> > question would apply to single versus dual.
> >
> > What's the difference between a quad core CPU and a faster dual
> core
> > CPU? Assume both are roughly equivalent overall. What sort of
> things
> > does faster processing allow? What sort of things does more
> > processing allow? An explanation or references would be
> appreciated.
> > I might do a little research in the meantime.
> >
> > This is just a guess.
> > Maybe more processing power would benefit consistent multitasking,
> > enabling processes that run continuously and simultaneously. Faster
> > would allow momentary bursts of processing. But what if you have
> > some tasks continuously using up the CPU, that burst is going to
> > interfere with those tasks isn't it? Or maybe faster is useful when
> > you have lots of tasks that are momentary. But what if they
> > coincide? Maybe it's a matter of degrees in the latter/faster case,
> > the CPU usage bursts aren't going to coincide frequently so usually
> > those process activities would benefit by the greater speed.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > yeah, I'm giddy
>
> IMO, overclocking isn't worth the few extra
> bits of speed. You risk the life of your processor, and things can
> easily overheat if everything is not set up just right.
>
> Overclocking made more sense back in the days of 500mhz PC's...but not
> so much these days. Of the two processors you mentioned here, go with
> the less expensive one and spend that extra $$ on more RAM.
>
Overclocking is only dangerous if you push the vcore too high (running it
too hot). It's not dangerous at all if you take the time and research what
you are doing. Intel core 2 duos are extremely overclockable. I've got a
E6420 2.13 Ghz running at 3.0 Ghz stable and running cool. Thats a marked
improvment in performance.


From: Fishface on 6 May 2008 19:07
overload(a)spam.ftc.gov wrote:

> Tried it. Works fine on the eight year old Asus CUSL2 and EB800 PIII
> with 800 FSB. I believe there's 512Mb RAM and an Asus V7700 series
> GeForce2GTS. Don't remember exactly which disks are in the system, but
> they are 7200 rpm and 20, 40, and 80 GB arranged as DASD. It's running
> either Win2K SP4 or WinXP SP2 at the moment. (I use the classic
> interface on all of my machines, so they look alike.)
>
> Ain't that a pisser -- you have a machine that's three times faster,
> with four times more RAM, and it's slower than an eight year old box.

No, you just don't know how it's supposed to run. Didn't run good on
Tualatin Celerons at 1.466 GHz either. You can watch in task manager
how it maxes out the CPU. It starts fairly OK but just keeps getting
slower. You really need those tiles to rotate instantly when clicked
to get only one rat and toy in the Party room at a time for maximum
score before you hit the virtually unplayable levels.

> And my 10-year old daughter has far too many webkinz. At the moment,
> she's swatting Wacky Zingos over a thousand feet on Webkinz World.
> (You have to buy the Wacky Zingo and register it to get to that level
> of the game.)
>
> She's learning how to animate a mermaid in Poser 7 which doesn't run
> on her machine. (you want the kid to learn something, get them
> something that interests them. She gets a new machine soon so she can
> do animation without using mine.)

Oh. I'm afraid my son's killing bots in P.O.E at the moment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_of_Existence

See if she likes this (requires Shockwave, encourages creative thinking):
www.lego.com/eng/create/activities/junkbot/

> Speaking of still being a teenager (umpteen), remember that children
> shouldn't have children.

Oh, too late!


From: John Doe on 6 May 2008 21:37
"Shadow36" <no(a)no.com> wrote:

> "JAT23" <JeffTaylor1985(a)gmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote in

>> IMO, overclocking isn't worth the few extra
>> bits of speed. You risk the life of your processor, and things
>> can easily overheat if everything is not set up just right.
>>
>> Overclocking made more sense back in the days of 500mhz
>> PC's...but not so much these days. Of the two processors you
>> mentioned here, go with the less expensive one and spend that
>> extra $$ on more RAM.
>>
> Overclocking is only dangerous if you push the vcore too high
> (running it too hot). It's not dangerous at all if you take the
> time and research what you are doing.

It's really only dangerous in your head if you imagine what you are
doing is very important. It probably isn't. For the same reason,
any speed improvement makes little difference. Faster CPUs usually
come with other features that make them faster. If I couldn't afford
enough CPU power and I wanted a little bit more speed to play the
latest games a little less choppy, I might overclock. Even if you
don't believe overclocking damages a processor, be prepared to lie
if/when you sell it.





From: JR Weiss on 4 May 2008 13:58
"John Doe" <jdoe(a)usenetlove.invalid> wrote...
>
> I guess the number of cores isn't really the issue, the same
> question would apply to single versus dual.
>
> What's the difference between a quad core CPU and a faster dual core
> CPU? Assume both are roughly equivalent overall. What sort of things
> does faster processing allow? What sort of things does more
> processing allow? An explanation or references would be appreciated.

First, a dual-core CPU will almost always allow your foreground app to run
better than a single-core in current systems with "normal" setups. After that,
it depends on how many apps/processes you have running, how heavily they burden
the CPU, and whether each of those apps can take advantage of multiple CPUs.

If you are running a single, single-threaded (i.e., cannot take advantage of
multiple CPUs) foreground app like MSIE or Word, and all your background
processes (OS, antivirus, firewall, etc) do not overburden a CPU, then you will
see better performance on that foreground app with a faster dual-core CPU than a
slower quad-core CPU on the same system.

However, if you are running a multi-threaded, SMP-aware foreground app like
Photoshop, it will likely run faster on a slightly slower quad-core CPU than the
faster dual-core.


From: class_a on 4 May 2008 15:57
John Doe wrote:
> class_a <class_a comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> John Doe wrote:
>>
>>> At stock speeds, the dual core E6850 beats the quad core Q6600 in
>>> practically every current application and benchmark. For superior
>>> speed, probably at a significant risk of greater errors, the Q6600
>>> must be overclock by 50%.
>> Just wondering how you determine the 50% overclock requirement
>> considering a Q6600 with a 33% overclock is running at the same 3GHz as
>> the E6850 but has twice the cores. I'm just wondering how you see the
>> Q6600 as having lower performance at this point and needs to be
>> overclocked by 50% to beat the E6850?
>
> Only in a vacuum.
>
> The E6850 starts out faster at stock speed but the Q6600 passes it when overclocked by 50%. Both could be overclocked to a point using their stock coolers. At some point you will have to use an aftermarket cooler. If you're interested, you can figure out whether or not the aftermarket cooler point is reached before or after the Q6600 becomes faster. Or you can continue doing the fan-boy-rant. Whatever.

You clearly don't have a clue.... do the math (please, so you stop
looking like a fool) then get back to me with an answer to how a Q6600
that is 33% overclocked can possibly be slower than an E6850. Both
running 3GHz, both have 9x multiplier, Q6600 has twice as many cores.
_How_ can that possibly be slower?

>> And before you answer, remember, both are Conroe cores and both
>> have 9x multipliers! This is not difficult math!
>
> Are you spitting on your monitor or drooling while typing that stuff?

I suspect what you're looking at is yourself in the reflection of your
monitor.
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Is my new power supply DOA? Am I missing something here?
Next: Surge / Ground / Lightning