1 Core vs. Duel Core

[Richard In Va.]

Probably an off-topic question so please be free to opt out on any answer if
you rather.

I've been window shopping for a new CPU and have a basic (I hope) question
to ask.

Which would be better...

a single core Pentium 4 HT CPU @ 4.0GHz
or
a duel core Pentium CPU @ 2.0GHz

Both would serve to run the OS + 1 user application with same memory/chipset
configuration. I understand that duel cores suite well when running multiple
applications, but what if running one application not designed for
multi-core CPU's.

Thanks for any help!

Richard in VA.
++++++++++++++++

 

[Shenan Stanley]

Probably an off-topic question so please be free to opt out on any
answer if you rather.

I've been window shopping for a new CPU and have a basic (I hope)
question to ask.

Which would be better...

a single core Pentium 4 HT CPU @ 4.0GHz
or
a duel core Pentium CPU @ 2.0GHz

Both would serve to run the OS + 1 user application with same
memory/chipset configuration. I understand that duel cores suite
well when running multiple applications, but what if running one
application not designed for multi-core CPU's.

Thanks for any help!

First - if anyone attempts to sell you a "duel" core processor - avoid it.
Why would you want the cores of your processor fighting all the time?
*grin* ( Once is a typo, 3+, less likely. May help you locate more
information on your own with the correct search words. ;-) )

Dual Core
Core2Duo
Quad Core
etc...

I would recommend - without hesitation - a multiple-core system. You do not
lose out in the long run nor initially. In fact - considering the price
difference - I would likely purchase a new system (desktop) with quad-core.

Somehow I doubt this system will be running only a single application,
but...

Anyway - I didn't think that Intel actually made the Pentium IV 4.0GHz... I
could be wrong. I thought they made up to 3.8GHz and then stopped.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20041014-4311.html

Anyway - I would go with the multiple core systems/processors over a single
core everytime now.

 

[Richard In Va.]

Thanks Shenan for your reply... and yes, spell check might help!

My reasoning for asking is because I understand multi core processors work
great for applications designed for multi core CPU's and that if your
running say 2 applications (not designed for multi core), one application
might channel through one core while the other application channels through
the 2nd core.

But if you only open 1 application, what does the other core do? Take care
of the OS with it's background processes? Or do the 2 cores "share" the CPU
load from the one application.

The other reason for asking is that I might very well have more than one
application open at one time and they both reside in memory, but the reality
is that I can only use one application at a time... the others are minimized
and in an idle state.

(Unless of course one of the minimized applications is encoding video or
something)

Just a hypothetical question... I've always been curious.

The other REAL reason I asked is that I just bought a cheap used PC with a
P4 3.8GHz HT CPU 800FSB, the motherboard is limited to P4 HT and Pentium D
processors. No Core2Duo on this board. I'm trying to decide if it's worth
while to upgrade to a Pentium D-9xx CPU with a slower clock rate.

Again thanks for the reply Shenan!

Have a safe Holiday!

Richard in Va.
++++++++++++++++

 

[Bob I]

Umm, there is the operating system and background applications to
consider, anti-virus etc.

Thanks Shenan for your reply... and yes, spell check might help!

My reasoning for asking is because I understand multi core processors work
great for applications designed for multi core CPU's and that if your
running say 2 applications (not designed for multi core), one application
might channel through one core while the other application channels through
the 2nd core.

But if you only open 1 application, what does the other core do? Take care
of the OS with it's background processes? Or do the 2 cores "share" the CPU
load from the one application.

The other reason for asking is that I might very well have more than one
application open at one time and they both reside in memory, but the reality
is that I can only use one application at a time... the others are minimized
and in an idle state.

(Unless of course one of the minimized applications is encoding video or
something)

Just a hypothetical question... I've always been curious.

The other REAL reason I asked is that I just bought a cheap used PC with a
P4 3.8GHz HT CPU 800FSB, the motherboard is limited to P4 HT and Pentium D
processors. No Core2Duo on this board. I'm trying to decide if it's worth
while to upgrade to a Pentium D-9xx CPU with a slower clock rate.

Again thanks for the reply Shenan!

Have a safe Holiday!

Richard in Va.
++++++++++++++++

 

[JS]

This chart from Tom's hardware may be of some help.
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2008-q1-2008/Photoshop-CS-3,Marque_fbrandx14,384.html

They have a number of benchmarks to pick from:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2008-q1-2008/benchmarks,16.html

 

[Ian D]

Thanks Shenan for your reply... and yes, spell check might help!

My reasoning for asking is because I understand multi core processors work
great for applications designed for multi core CPU's and that if your
running say 2 applications (not designed for multi core), one application
might channel through one core while the other application channels
through the 2nd core.

But if you only open 1 application, what does the other core do? Take care
of the OS with it's background processes? Or do the 2 cores "share" the
CPU load from the one application.

The other reason for asking is that I might very well have more than one
application open at one time and they both reside in memory, but the
reality is that I can only use one application at a time... the others are
minimized and in an idle state.

(Unless of course one of the minimized applications is encoding video or
something)

Just a hypothetical question... I've always been curious.

The other REAL reason I asked is that I just bought a cheap used PC with a
P4 3.8GHz HT CPU 800FSB, the motherboard is limited to P4 HT and Pentium D
processors. No Core2Duo on this board. I'm trying to decide if it's
worth while to upgrade to a Pentium D-9xx CPU with a slower clock rate.

Again thanks for the reply Shenan!

Have a safe Holiday!

Richard in Va.
++++++++++++++++

A Pentium D at a specific clock rate is no faster than a P4 at the same
speed. On the other hand, a Core 2 Duo, would leave a P4 in the dust.
My 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo running on a single core is much faster than my
3.2GHz P4. The Core 2 runs more instructions per clock cycle than a P4.

 

[sgopus]

IMHO the single core faster cpu is better, as not many programs take
advantage of the dual core just yet.

 

[Richard in Va.]

Thanks Ian,

That's the kind of information and opinion I'm looking for, so maybe the $$
to upgrade to a Pentium D may not yield much bang for the buck...

My board won't support a Core 2 Duo. Actually, I bought 3 of these P4 HT
3.8GHz 800FSB for pretty cheap on eBay to replace the P4 2.0GHz 400FSB I
currently have. I'll hook all three to a KVM and have a "poor mans" multi
core system.

Thanks again and Merry Christmas!

Richard in Va.
+++++++++++++

 

[Mike Moreland]

This link might help your decision.
http://www.networkfactor.net/newsdualcore.html

 

[Richard in Va.]

A good read Mike, thanks!

The article is dated 2006 and maybe predating the Core 2 Duo. But still a
great read and answers a few questions I have... Thanks again!

Richard in Va.
++++++++++++

 

[Richard in Va.]

Thanks JA,

Charts are always good!

Richard in va.
++++++++++

 

[Richard in Va.]

Another question... might be pushing my luck here but hey, it's Christmas so
why not.

The PC I bought is a refurbished Dell OptiPlex GX620 mid tower.

Intel P4 3.8GHz HT
Socket 775
800FSB
Intel i945G Chipset
Phoenix / Dell BIOS A11 (11/30/06)
Motherboard MFG by Intel for Dell

Intel claims the chipset will support a higher buss speed as well as the
Core2Duo CPU.
Everything I've read says the Dell BIOS is locked at 800FSB and can't handle
the Core2Duo CPU.
Award no longer sells aftermarket BIOS's.

Would anyone know how I might "unlock" the BIOS?
I would like to be able to either...
a) overclock ~10% to yield a 4.0+GHz P4 CPU
b) mod the BIOS to accept a Core2Duo @ 800FSB
c) mod the BIOS to accept a Core2Duo @ 1066FSB

Now someone is going to tell me I'm nuts and I'm asking to fry something....
but again, hey... it's Christmas and I have 3 of these things.

Thanks again!

Richard in Va.
++++++++++++++++

 

[Paul]

Another question... might be pushing my luck here but hey, it's Christmas so
why not.

The PC I bought is a refurbished Dell OptiPlex GX620 mid tower.

Intel P4 3.8GHz HT
Socket 775
800FSB
Intel i945G Chipset
Phoenix / Dell BIOS A11 (11/30/06)
Motherboard MFG by Intel for Dell

Intel claims the chipset will support a higher buss speed as well as the
Core2Duo CPU.
Everything I've read says the Dell BIOS is locked at 800FSB and can't handle
the Core2Duo CPU.
Award no longer sells aftermarket BIOS's.

Would anyone know how I might "unlock" the BIOS?
I would like to be able to either...
a) overclock ~10% to yield a 4.0+GHz P4 CPU
b) mod the BIOS to accept a Core2Duo @ 800FSB
c) mod the BIOS to accept a Core2Duo @ 1066FSB

Now someone is going to tell me I'm nuts and I'm asking to fry something....
but again, hey... it's Christmas and I have 3 of these things.

Thanks again!

Richard in Va.
++++++++++++++++

I think the first question I'd start with, is how much benefit
would additional performance give you ?

To give an example, I upgraded from a P4 with Hyperthreading to
a Core2Duo, and while I can quote you some benchmarks I've run,
I also see things in real usage patterns, that don't seem to
be that much faster. For example, I assumed in a game that I used,
that the limitation was not the read rate of the hard drive, but the
fact that the files being read were in ZIP format, and had to be
decompressed. I figured the Core2 would make short work of them,
but the game load time is just as obnoxious as it was before.

I tried Windows Movie Maker, and in that application, writing out
a movie uses both cores. But the performance was still less than
impressive.

So the first question would be, whether such an upgrade will only
be useful for winning benchmarks.

The "improvements" coming from the computing industry now, are
more of a niche thing, than a mainstream thing. I don't use
Windows Movie Maker that much, so don't get to see both
cores busy very often. Much of the software I use, tends
to be single threaded.

I use SuperPI as a single threaded benchmark. The P4 at 3.1GHz
did that benchmark (generate 1 million digits of PI), in 45 to
50 seconds. The 50 second mark, is with antivirus software running
in the background. The Core2Duo at 2.6GHz, has a time of 24 seconds.
If I overclock the Core2Duo 2.6GHz to 3.46GHz or so, the time drops
to 18 seconds. (The World's Record is somewhere around 7 seconds.)
These numbers appear impressive, but real usage patterns seem to
be dominated by other issues. So I'm not sure whether getting you
all excited about Core2Duo, is really the best answer. There has
to be a reason, and there has to be proof, that it is worth doing.

http://www.xtremesystems.com/pi/super_pi_mod-1.5.zip

When I did the upgrade, it cost me

1) $70 for the cheapest motherboard with the slots I needed.
2) $140 for an OEM processor without cooler.
3) ~$35 for a cooler. Turns out, because of the low cooling
requirement, I would have been better off with a retail processor
which includes a cheesy cooler.
4) New RAM, about $65 worth.

I kept the power supply and case, drives, keyboard, mouse, video
card and so on, from the previous system. With the Dell, there'd
be the issue of how you'd restore the OS to a "foreign" motherboard,
so potentially there is the cost of a new OS as well. (The Dell OS
scheme is only a good deal, if you keep the Dell hardware configuration.)

My Core2Duo is easy on power. The processor has a TDP of 65W, but
when measured with my clamp-on ammeter, won't draw more than 36W,
even with both cores running 100%. But to justify the upgrade
based on power savings, would require a very long payback
period.

Paul

 

[Richard in Va.]

All probably good and valid points Paul... I hear you and thanks for the
in-depth reply. Maybe I'll stick to the "poor mans" multi core system and
get a KVM switch!

3 boxes, 1 monitor, 1 kboard, 1 mouse & 1 KVM switch... I'm good!

And the 3 CPU's won't be fighting all the time either!
(just kidding)

Thanks again Paul!

Richard in Va.
++++++++++

 

[JohnO]

All probably good and valid points Paul... I hear you and thanks for the
in-depth reply. Maybe I'll stick to the "poor mans" multi core system and
get a KVM switch!

3 boxes, 1 monitor, 1 kboard, 1 mouse & 1 KVM switch... I'm good!

And the 3 CPU's won't be fighting all the time either!
(just kidding)

Thanks again Paul!

Try Remote Desktop instead of a KVM. Might not suit you, but it works for
me...I can run any of three, four, or 50 machines if I wanted.

-John O

 

[Peter Foldes]

Not only are you impersonating an MVP by the name of Ken Blake but you are at this
same thing again. Stop posting that these do not belong here posts. This is a
HARDWARE newsgroup and the poster had every right to post here and the post BELONGS
here

Your IP has been reported this time and do not try this again

 

[Richard in Va.]

Thanks Peter... "Ken Blake" said that to me before, it was rather startling
to hear something like that coming from a "MVP".

Thanks for the clarification!

Richard in Va.
+++++++++++

 

[liveprices]

sorry to inter , testing if I could post as my threads are taken down without
any reason. thanks

 

[RJK]

I read through this thread with interest, and all make some interesting and
useful points.

My experience is that even for "everyday computing", ( ...what a STUPID
expression that is btw ! ), including running several programs at once, e.g.
leaving a DVD burning away whilst carrying on doing other things, in other
applications, my now "old" Pentium D 935 dual-core with 2gb's of Corsair
memory, and XP Home ed SP3 is still simply amazing ! I've even had an AVG
a/v sweep rear it's ugly head whilst doing the aforementioned tasks - and I
still got a good DVD+/-r instead of a beer mat ! Had all that been going
on in my previous Socket A/462 XP2600+ i.e. despite being lovingly
optimised, dual channel motherboard / ATA133 on chipset and hd's - optimal
RAM and plenty of it, and XP preened and tweaked up to the hilt - things
would have inevitably come to a grinding halt - and several things would
have got their knickers in a twist !

....In my view there is simply no comparison between a single core, and a
dual core cpu with XP platform. During the past 2 or three months I've been
nurturing a 2nd system box with an Athlon 64 6000 2x1mb L2 Windsor 89w
cpu in it, ..( which btw now seems to have already been discontinued by AMD,
and replaced with a partially crippled L2 cache version {2x512kb} ...I
wonder if that's because their (AMD) Phenom sales aren't going too well ?
! )

....Now and again I switch on my x2 6000, and XP & AVG update it, and have a
bit of a fiddle around with it, and yet again think to myself, "One day I
may put it in pride of place, as my main PC." ...but, I still can't bring
myself to do that !
PC hardware evolution reached the point, quite a few years ago, whereby a
system box should last many years. I think my old XP2600 based box was in
use for over 5 or 6 years, compared to the days when I seemed to change
motherboard, and often everything else, every few months ! :- 8086 8mz /
80286 12 then 16 ..then 20? mhz / 80386 16/20/25/30?mhz / 80486 ? ...quad
pumped something or other !!?!!! ...if I'd kept all that hardware I could
have started a micro museum !

regards, Richard

 

[Dragomir Kollaric]

sorry to inter , testing if I could post as my threads are taken down without
any reason. thanks

No Dude your posts are all here, fact is more likely after
you read your own posts the lousy excuse for a newsreader
you use *hides* read posts. Besides this is Usenet and don't
expect that a answer to your query will be posted as soon as
you hit the send button. So please be patient and don't post
multiple times the same question. Last I checked this is a
unmoderated newsgroup, IE it means nobody deletes unwanted
posts. It might be the news-server you are using has a short
retention time for posts, but not one just for a few days.

IOW the problem is between the PC and the chair if you can
catch my drift






Dragomir Kollaric[/QUOTE]