Quad Core

[Guest]

I read where AMD is comong out with a Quad Core CPU.
I have a dual core Intel CPU. And I see no difference in anything from when
I used a single core CPU. The MB bios and XP both see the dual core.
Can anyone explain what the difference/advantage between single,dual and
Quad core CPUs are?
Just wondering.

 

[Jerry]

Right now, none, until and unless the software you're using has been written
for it.

 

[JS]

Very little unless the software application is specifically coded to take
advantage of multiple core processors.
However some games and apps due improve, see Tom's Hardware for some
benchmarks.
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html

JS

 

[Steve Shattuck]

I read where AMD is comong out with a Quad Core CPU.

I have a dual core Intel CPU. And I see no difference in anything from
when
I used a single core CPU. The MB bios and XP both see the dual core.
Can anyone explain what the difference/advantage between single,dual and
Quad core CPUs are?

Simply speaking it means a single processor that emulates 2 (dual core) or 4
(quad core) CPU's in parallel. Technically, Intel and AMD have some
differences, but they are not really important to the user.

I see you've already received the obligatory silly answer "Nothing unless
your software is written to support multiple processors." While it is true
that you can get more benefit from specially written code that supports
multiprocessing, depending on which version of XP you are using, you can get
significant benefits even with software written for a single processor.

First, as mentioned above, it depends on the version of XP. XP Home has
very rudamentary multiple processor support, generally the ability to run OS
tasks in one processor and application tasks in the other. It support no
processor balancing, and benchmarks show wild swings in processor usage
between one or the other processor at any point in time. XP Pro on the
other hand has significant code to support asynchronous multi-processing,
and will generally make better use of the parallel processors.

As far as applications are concerned, many applications spawn asynchronous
threads which the OS can dynamically assign to the multiple processors. An
example is the "on-the-fly" spell checkers in most word processing programs.
MS Word or Corel's WordPerfect typically have dozens of asychronous threads
active at any one time. Other programs like Photoshop, can spawn 100's of
asynchronous threads for photo editing. XP Pro can dynamically assign these
threads to the least used processor, thus balancing the usage of the
processors for better efficiency. I have no applications that support
multiprocessing directly, but typically have 150-200 active threads. Your
mileage may vary.

Finally, nothing works as well as a program that has direct multiprocessing
support. Oracle Database is a good example of such a program, and it flies
on a Quad Intel Xeon setup found on large servers.

 

[Curt Christianson]

Hi Poatt,

I'm just here to agree wholeheartedly with Jerry and JS. The potential is
there, and it will be fast, *when* vendors finally to decide to start
writing software for the new CPU's,

--
HTH,
Curt

Windows Support Center
www.aumha.org
Practically Nerded,...
http://dundats.mvps.org/Index.htm

| I read where AMD is comong out with a Quad Core CPU.
| I have a dual core Intel CPU. And I see no difference in anything from
when
| I used a single core CPU. The MB bios and XP both see the dual core.
| Can anyone explain what the difference/advantage between single,dual and
| Quad core CPUs are?
| Just wondering.

 

[JS]

Currently there is shortage of programmers that have the skills to develop
or make the changes necessary to take advantage of multicore processors. So
it will take some time for applications that span the entire user spectrum
to be released and as expected the more expensive high end software will get
the makeover sooner than later. Also operating systems will also need to be
upgraded accordingly so a Vista's replacement or major Service Pack would be
required.

JS

 

[Bruce Chambers]

I read where AMD is comong out with a Quad Core CPU.
I have a dual core Intel CPU. And I see no difference in anything from when
I used a single core CPU. The MB bios and XP both see the dual core.
Can anyone explain what the difference/advantage between single,dual and
Quad core CPUs are?
Just wondering.

Much better performance, assuming you're running the sort of
applications, or performing the type of tasks, that would benefit form
the more advanced CPU. If all you're doing with the computer is
balancing the checkbook, surfing the web, and using email, you won't
notice much difference, if any.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell

 

[JS]

Actually they should have a sticker on the software that if effect states
that it is 'Certified' for 'Dual', 'Quad', '8 Cores' and takes full
advantage of the number of cores it is certified for, this way if you own a
multicore system you will not spend any money (an keeps you checkbook
balanced) on software that you would expect to but in reality does not show
significant performance improvements on multicore processors.

JS

 

[Telstar]

Simply speaking it means a single processor that emulates 2 (dual core) or
4 (quad core) CPU's in parallel. Technically, Intel and AMD have some
differences, but they are not really important to the user.

Could you expand on this? Our XP Core 2 Duo performs much better than AMD
or Intel previous dual core architectures.

 

[Guest]

Thank you all for the great input.
I see that more and more MVPs and experts from the Win98 NGs are
posting/answering here. This NG is more usable/understanable because of it.

 

[Curt Christianson]

Poatt,

I've noticed the migration too. Bur as they say, "One mans loss is another
mans gain".

--
HTH,
Curt

Windows Support Center
www.aumha.org
Practically Nerded,...
http://dundats.mvps.org/Index.htm

| Thank you all for the great input.
| I see that more and more MVPs and experts from the Win98 NGs are
| posting/answering here. This NG is more usable/understanable because of
it.
|
| "poatt" wrote:
|
| > I read where AMD is comong out with a Quad Core CPU.
| > I have a dual core Intel CPU. And I see no difference in anything from
when
| > I used a single core CPU. The MB bios and XP both see the dual core.
| > Can anyone explain what the difference/advantage between single,dual
and
| > Quad core CPUs are?
| > Just wondering.

 

[AJR]

"Dual Core", "Quad Core" are currently marketing tools - the capability is
there during manufacturing. Applications must be written to take advantage
of Dual/Quad core or dual processors - as time goes by there will be more
available.

 

[Guest]

This of course assumes that you only do 1 thing at a time. I often have 100
threads running several of which will use an entire CPU if they can get it.
I have an Excel analysis that takes over 5 hours to process. Multiple cores
and/or multiple processors allow me to continue to do other things at the
same time.

If you only run one application at a time you will likely not notice much
difference beyond dual core. But even with only 1 application running there
is some OS overhead that can be processed by the second CPU/Core.