Vista and Dual Core Processors

[nigelH]

The reason for dual core is that clock speeds have pretty much maxed out on current technology. They can't reduce the voltages much more so the insulating layers can't get much thinner. So how do you stay up with your competitors? Multiple CPUs on the chip.

Dual is just the start. Expect increasing numbers over the next few years just to move the MIPS. The biggest bloat is graphics and other media stuff not kernel although our stuff is deliberately multi-threading where 'sequential' is not required.

[StuartC]

Multicore Processors are more complex to program for, hence why an easy implementation is to divide applications up between CPUs, but this is just a waste.

This article gives some useful insights into what's going on to get to grips with multicore CPUs.

AnandTech: Valve Hardware Day 2006 - Multithreaded Edition

and reading through this article they're talking about holding off buying dual core and going to QUAD core CPUs......

the mind boggles.

Oh, and with all that processing power, you'll need an Uber graphics card too.

The new DirectX® 10 Nvidia 8800 cards are a bit pricey!

Overclockers UK 8800 Series

[Ferg3333]

Dual core only really offers you a 30% increase in system performance. I have not yet looked at quad core processors. But either way the future lies with quantum computing although my knowledge of quantum physics leads me to think otherwise. Some of the applications I work on require 512 processor machines and parallel programming is one of ways in which to utilise such resources. Either way companies need to recoup research and development time hence staggered releases. Unless you love microsoft, get linux its free and runs a lot faster.

[John N]

I have a Core Duo E6600. They can, apparently be overclocked to almost twice their stock speed if you want. It won't be under warranty though and the temperature increase will mean you need to invest in very good cooling solutions. Not that most people need to.

The multithread argument is a bit misleading though.

The reason I got one is that you can run multiple applications without your system slowing down - burning cds, playing mp3s and surfing at the same time. That's where I see the benefit.

To be honest, processor speed isn't a problem for most people as they don't run applications that tax the processor more than other components such as the memory.

Incidently, I have a new, unopened boxed Intel Core Duo E6600 spare if anyone would like to make a reasonable offer for it. They are around £230 new.

[Scuby]

You'll only need big processors in Vista if you leave all the pointless "pretty" things turned on. If / when I get it i'll no doubt be knocking the graphics back to their plain old settings and turning off all the crap that runs in the background. My operating system exists to let me start all my other programs - I'd rather have a fast if not very attractive OS than a super-pretty interface that runs all my programs 5x slower.

David

[Adrian Kelland]

Originally Posted by Scuby

You'll only need big processors in Vista if you leave all the pointless "pretty" things turned on. If / when I get it i'll no doubt be knocking the graphics back to their plain old settings and turning off all the crap that runs in the background. My operating system exists to let me start all my other programs - I'd rather have a fast if not very attractive OS than a super-pretty interface that runs all my programs 5x slower.

David

Oh yes. I just don't need animated fading drop down boxes

[StuartC]

Originally Posted by John N

I have a Core Duo E6600. They can, apparently be overclocked to almost twice their stock speed if you want. It won't be under warranty though and the temperature increase will mean you need to invest in very good cooling solutions. Not that most people need to.

The multithread argument is a bit misleading though.

The reason I got one is that you can run multiple applications without your system slowing down - burning cds, playing mp3s and surfing at the same time. That's where I see the benefit.

To be honest, processor speed isn't a problem for most people as they don't run applications that tax the processor more than other components such as the memory.

Incidently, I have a new, unopened boxed Intel Core Duo E6600 spare if anyone would like to make a reasonable offer for it. They are around £230 new.

I read an article recently where they overclocked an E6300 to match a stock E6700 processor using the standard retail cooling kit.

£130 CPU matches £500+ CPU....but only if you've got a top motherboard and RAM to enable the overclock in the first place, so whilst it's a budget chip solution, it's still not that cheap.

Ferg3333 Surely dual core offers more than a 30% increase in performance, but also benefits in other ways such as lower power consumption and heat output.
Presumably the 30% increase is when running non-optimised applications, as the OS divides the applications between the 2 cores, e.g. running anti-virus and other system tray utilities in 1 core, whilst your main application is taking the 2nd core.

As more multi-core CPUs get into the mainstream user base, then more software will be designed to make better use of the multi-processor availability.

and in terms of an increase in performance, it depends what your starting point is...my Athlon XP 1900 is getting a bit long in the tooth now and a Core 2 Duo E6300 is looking to be a definite upgrade path in the next few months.

[Scuby]

Originally Posted by StuartC

Presumably the 30% increase is when running non-optimised applications, as the OS divides the applications between the 2 cores, e.g. running anti-virus and other system tray utilities in 1 core, whilst your main application is taking the 2nd core.

Depends what you're doing. My laptop here is idling at 7% processor usage (XP, with Outlook, Media Player, 7 IE windows open and 12 Firefox windows, as well as MSN, antivirus, etc). So if I had something I wanted to run now it won't make a huge difference running on a separate core than running in the remaining 93% of my current processor.

Yes Vista will use a bit more background resource, but unless you have crap turned on that you don't need there's no reason it will be very much higher than XP.

[John N]

Originally Posted by StuartC

I read an article recently where they overclocked an E6300 to match a stock E6700 processor using the standard retail cooling kit.

Probably just for long enough to boot and get a photo of the clock speed before it burned up

The motherboards are expensive but RAM is cheap and these chips aren't as picky about fast RAM as AMDs.

My AMD Athlon 'Thunderbird' was getting very old and after a lot of research, the new Intel chips were the best price/performance by a mile. Having said that, big hard drives and stacks of RAM will make a lot more difference to most people.

[milldog]

loaded Vista today it's very good but takes some memory and hard drive space