what the hell quad-core!?

[c/Kr3t]

why do you suck sooo much ***? is it because you're AMD? is it because if i remove the fan while you work you fry your own brain?

isn't 4 BETTER than 2? so why does it still suck ***? i'm so annoyed that i spent money to buy you and i regret it... you're slow, your temp is always an issue. why, oh why do you suck...


:( i am sad

[c/Kr3t]

maybe because most programs aren't multithread...i don't know..

[Therion]

isn't 4 BETTER than 2?
No. Not always.

Benchmarks and independent reviews: Read, then buy.

[KiwiNZ]

Remove the Fan ?????????????

Why?????????

[fatality_uk]

Remove the Fan ?????????????

Why?????????

+1111111111


Why the heck are you removing a fan on a live machine?

[v8YKxgHe]

your temp is always an issue

That may be due to the fact you removed the very thing designed to keep the little thing running cool? Just a guess =)

Also, due to the architecture of many (all?) 'Quad Core' CPUs - you wont get *that* much performance difference between dual core (unless you are using an app that can take full advantage of all of the cores, e.g rendering). To get the most out of a quad core CPU, you need something such as an Intel Core i7. The architecture on these are a true quad-core

[gruffy-06]

[This comment was deleted by the original poster.]

[Nepherte]

Some type of applications like encoding programs (mencoder, x264) take advantage of multiple cores. Other applications still don't.

[Grant A.]

is it because if i remove the fan while you work you fry your own brain?

your temp is always an issue.

:lol:

I believe you have answered your own question.

Epic Fail.

[uberdonkey5]

Yeh, maybe you have to wait a while until software can take advantage of it fully. Its like the ugly ducking at the moment.

[handy]

I think that whilst current software that makes use of multiple cores is relatively rare; a quad-core CPU powered machine should really be an amazing multi-tasker, without the performance penalty you would experience most especially on a single core processor.

On my dual-core, I can be moving a huge amount (14Gb) of data from that machine to the FreeNAS box, watching a movie streaming from the FreeNAS box, ripping a DVD with DVDShrink, (& I'm sure I had something else going on) & there is no noticeable performance penalty!

A quad-core must be able to run more separate processes at once than a dual-core.

To the OP; if you don't like the sound of the fan, you had better invest in an alternative cooling solution, like water cooling, before you destroy your expensive CPU.

[c/Kr3t]

lemme just clear something up. i'm not the smartest man in the world but do you REALLY think i would remove the fan on a live machine? no, i would not or i wouldn't have said anything. there is a youtube video of AMD and Intel chips being tested that way by taking the fan off during a live session and i assumed you all knew what i was talking about...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgOmMAasqto

[%hMa@?b<C]

lemme just clear something up. i'm not the smartest man in the world but do you REALLY think i would remove the fan on a live machine? no, i would not or i wouldn't have said anything. there is a youtube video of AMD and Intel chips being tested that way by taking the fan off during a live session and i assumed you all knew what i was talking about...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgOmMAasqto

that video is really old, really really old. I'm pretty sure that AMD has some sort of protection now.

[c/Kr3t]

that video is really old, really really old. I'm pretty sure that AMD has some sort of protection now.

probably, but i'm in no mood to see if you're right lol

[handy]

that video is really old, really really old. I'm pretty sure that AMD has some sort of protection now.

They have had that protection (thermal diode) for years now.

[3rdalbum]

When ACPI is turned on, Linux will automatically start shutting down the system if the temperature reaches the "I love the smell of transistors in the morning" stage. If you were running the CPU at 100% usage, your CPU would probably turn itself off before the shutdown completed.

Didn't you notice that the video was really old? Didn't the single raised core on the CPU and the model numbers give you a clue of how old the video was?

[mips]

To the OP, what exactly is the point you are trying to get across?

[mips]

A quad-core must be able to run more separate processes at once than a dual-core.


I love my Quad, the thing never breaks a sweat.

[handy]

I love my Quad, the thing never breaks a sweat.

It is only recently that I have started to appreciate the joys of multi-tasking with my dual-core. I developed the habit years ago of carefully using system resources, closing app's that I wasn't using, not having multiple windows open all over the place. Though some of these things still irk me, I am learning that it is now ok to do a lot more things at once than I thought was possible; I am actually really enjoying how well the dual-core multi-tasks.

So I can really appreciate that a quad-core doesn't need the app's to be multi-threaded in a fashion to make use of the quad-cores for it to an incredibly useful & efficient multi-tasking power house.

I want one. :-)

[ssj4Gogeta]

Quad cores are great. As handy said, you don't need to have a multithreaded app to enjoy the benefits of multicore. Multicores multitask great, cause you have process-level parallelism while multitasking. AMD Phenoms used to be crap but the new Phenom II's that have just been launched actually compare with Intel Core 2 Quad series. I'm still an Intel guy though. Their i7 series is untouchable. You can get and i7 920 (the lowest model) for $300 and motherboard for around $200. Then you can overclock it from 2.66 GHz to 3.8 GHz without any trouble at all and get the benefits of the higher end $500-1000 i7's. The thing overclocks like a dream. I haven't bought one yet, but my friends have and I'm going to get one soon.

But if you don't want so much processing power, you can always go for an E8400 Core 2 Duo and get it to like 3.8 GHz.

[Stalker72]

I love my Quad, the thing never breaks a sweat.
+1

I've owned a Yorkfield and now I own a Nehalem (Core i7). \\:D/

Stalker72

[cookieofdoom]

You have to buy hardware to match your needs. If you do multithreaded operations (GIMP, Blender, VM's, lots of multitasking...) a lot, quad core is the way to go. If you don't do much of that (office work, interweb browsing, using older applications, and other things I can't really think of right now), than dual core or eve single core may be better.

You wouldn't buy a big fancy powerful pickup truck and expect it to do 120MPH... and you wouldn't buy a fast shiny sports car and expect it to pull a trailer and go off-road.

There's always the possibility of overclocking to get more out of your quad core... I pushed my triple core out from 2.3ghz to 2.86ghz.

[Skripka]

:lol:

I believe you have answered your own question.

Epic Fail.

I believe if the OP would have RTFM about his CPU-he would have read the part about "Never run a CPU without a heatsink".....of course if he did-we wouldn't be here.

[Skripka]

Quad cores are great. As handy said, you don't need to have a multithreaded app to enjoy the benefits of multicore. Multicores multitask great, cause you have process-level parallelism while multitasking. AMD Phenoms used to be crap but the new Phenom II's that have just been launched actually compare with Intel Core 2 Quad series. I'm still an Intel guy though. Their i7 series is untouchable. You can get and i7 920 (the lowest model) for $300 and motherboard for around $200.

They wallet rape you on memory costs though...actually not even WorstBuy has DDR3 in stock yet-nor any of the other vendors in town in NowHere, have to surf NewEgg for it. My brother found this out the hard way.

[jomiolto]

Poor me still chugging along with a single core Celeron :P This laptop could actually handle a Core 2 Duo, but laptop processors are terribly expensive :(

[ssam]

most computer tasks are limited by disk speed (especially access time) rather than CPU time. a 16 core 10GHz CPU would not make ubuntu boot any faster, but replacing the hard disk by a fast solid state drive would.

[handy]

Quad-cores must make a machine multitask like an Amiga!

Though they did do it so well on 256K's of RAM. :lolflag:

[Jack Jebedee]

Yeh, maybe you have to wait a while until software can take advantage of it fully. Its like the ugly ducking at the moment.

That's exactly what Apple's Snow Leopard is all about. Put bells and whistles on hold. Get the OS to run optimally in multiple cores.

... JJ

[mips]

Quad-cores must make a machine multitask like an Amiga!

Though they did do it so well on 256K's of RAM. :lolflag:

I wish someone with deep pockets would buy all the rights to Amiga & Amiga OS and then just opensource it becuase in it's present form it is being shot in the head on a regular basis.

[handy]

I wish someone with deep pockets would buy all the rights to Amiga & Amiga OS and then just opensource it becuase in it's present form it is being shot in the head on a regular basis.

I agree, the tragedy of the Amiga has been drawn out for about 15 years now. It is only because it was so good that it has been able to survive on hope for so long.

[mcduck]

That's exactly what Apple's Snow Leopard is all about. Put bells and whistles on hold. Get the OS to run optimally in multiple cores.

... JJ

Changing the OS doesn't help really. It's the applications you run that need to be changed, and in many cases that's not even possible as many of the tasks simply cannot be broken into multiple threads.

No matter what OS you run, single-threaded applications are still only able to use one core. That's something that can't be changed.

[mips]

I agree, the tragedy of the Amiga has been drawn out for about 15 years now. It is only because it was so good that it has been able to survive on hope for so long.

It's sad how something so good can be destroyed by people. Imagine running AmigaOS 4 on a mordern day Quad Core? One Amiga would be able to take over mission control for NASA, run the NSAs stuff on another core, render hollywood blockbusters on another and finally just leave the last core for average desktop usage and gaming, ok so I'm going a bit overboard ;)

Would you go back if they opensourced it or made it freely available without restrictions to hardware? I think I would.

[bufsabre666]

a 2.6ghz dual core is ganna beat a 2.0ghz quadcore everytime (if theyre on the same architecture that is), i have a phenom 9950BE 2.6ghz and i use a big quiet heatsync and fan, i never hear it and it runs at 40c +/-5c, plus its nice and fast. long story short, put the cooler back on

[mips]

a 2.6ghz dual core is ganna beat a 2.0ghz quadcore everytime (if theyre on the same architecture that is),

That statement is false. It all depends on what you are doing with the computer.

[bufsabre666]

That statement is false. It all depends on what you are doing with the computer.

that statement is asuming youre doing the same thing at the same time and checking it, are you saying one of the low end 2.1ghz core i7s would encode the same mp3 faster than one of the high end 3.5+ghz ones

[markp1989]

all of you complaining about your fancy multi core cpus. whilst im posting this on a 500mhz celeron m (underclocked from 900 to save power)

any my main machine is a single core celeron D running at 3.2ghz

[Cope57]

Some people were just not meant for the computer world.
Back in 1994, geek was a four letter word.
Now it is a six figure income.

Those that are having issues with a basic desktop, should not even own a PC, they should stick to gaming consoles, or get a outdoor hobby.

[mips]

that statement is asuming youre doing the same thing at the same time and checking it,

Instead of thing let's say 'things'




are you saying one of the low end 2.1ghz core i7s would encode the same mp3 faster than one of the high end 3.5+ghz ones

If you are only running one instance of the encoder the faster machine would obviously be faster.

Now let's try this. I challenge you to encode 4x avi to mpeg2 running four instances of ffmpeg on both a C2D and a C2Q and tell me the faster C2D will win. One instance of ffmpeg easily maxes out an individual core.

A quad core will beat a dual core when the amount of applications used becomes high as there is more cores to spread the load around. For single application scenarios the higher clock speed machine will win if the arch is the same. It really is that simple, pure GHz rating has long been a thing of the past.

Theoretically speaking I could match single application performace on my C2Q if I overclocked it to the same clock speed as the C2D assuming the bus & memory is running at the same speed.

[notwen]

I've got zero complaints about my new machine running a Kentsfield Q6600 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q6600#Core_2_Quad). =] It's a pretty powerful processor for the budget builder in my opinion, but then again I suppose that depends on the builder's budget. =p

[blothian]

If you take the cooler off, it overheats, the solders melt, plastic melts on the chip, your F****D

[ssj4Gogeta]

Now let's try this. I challenge you to encode 4x avi to mpeg2 running four instances of ffmpeg on both a C2D and a C2Q and tell me the faster C2D will win. One instance of ffmpeg easily maxes out an individual core.

You don't need to run 4x encodes to beat it. There is multithreaded encoding software out there.


@bufsabre666: besides that, you can't compare two different processor architectures by clock speeds alone. IPC (instructions per cycle) also counts. That's why a low clocked Core 2 Duo will outperform a much higher clocked Pentium 4 even in applications that use only one core.

[ssj4Gogeta]

He didn't actually remove the fan, he was just kidding.



lemme just clear something up. i'm not the smartest man in the world but do you REALLY think i would remove the fan on a live machine? no, i would not or i wouldn't have said anything. there is a youtube video of AMD and Intel chips being tested that way by taking the fan off during a live session and i assumed you all knew what i was talking about...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgOmMAasqto

[bruce89]

/* Uses GThread (gcc `pkg-config --cflags --libs gthread-2.0` -o thread thread.c) */
#include <stdio.h>

#include <glib.h>

#define PROCS 2

static gint count = 1;

static void
thread_func (void)
{
GTimer *timer;
gdouble pi;
gint i;
gdouble seconds;

printf ("Started thread #%d\n", count);
count++;

timer = g_timer_new ();

pi = 0;

for (i = 0; i < 200000000; i++)
{
pi += 1.0 / (i * 4.0 + 1.0);
pi -= 1.0 / (i * 4.0 + 3.0);
}
pi = pi * 4.0;

seconds = g_timer_elapsed (timer, NULL);
g_timer_destroy (timer);
printf ("pi is %lf and took %lfs to calculate\n", pi, seconds);
}

int
main (void)
{
GThreadPool *pool;
gint i;

g_thread_init (NULL);

pool = g_thread_pool_new ((GFunc) thread_func, NULL, PROCS, FALSE, NULL);

for (i = 0; i < 100; i++)
g_thread_pool_push (pool, pool, NULL);

g_usleep (50000000);

return 0;
}


Change PROCS to 4, compile and enjoy the fun of computing pi 4 times simultaneously.

As you may be able to see, it is not a case of compiler flags.

[handy]

It's sad how something so good can be destroyed by people. Imagine running AmigaOS 4 on a mordern day Quad Core? One Amiga would be able to take over mission control for NASA, run the NSAs stuff on another core, render hollywood blockbusters on another and finally just leave the last core for average desktop usage and gaming, ok so I'm going a bit overboard ;)

:lolflag:



Would you go back if they opensourced it or made it freely available without restrictions to hardware? I think I would.

Definitely.

Between Arch & the AmigaOS I would be in OS heaven.

I keep my eye on AROS from time to time; it does keep moving, but I think it will take years before it meets its initial goal.

It's a shame Mark Shuttleworth wasn't an Amiga nut! :-D

[darrenn]

all of you complaining about your fancy multi core cpus. whilst im posting this on a 500mhz celeron m (underclocked from 900 to save power)

any my main machine is a single core celeron D running at 3.2ghz

Yes most people would agree knowledge is power. It's not what you own it's what you know.

One time I went to repair a professor's computer. All he knew about was mac's and all my knowledge was pc's. Well to make a long story short I left feeling like a fool. I owned way better and more computers then he did. But my knowledge compared to his was nothing. ... and yet he was very meek and never pointed this out to me.

Sorry this is a drunk post. My friends invited me out for drinks. :)