Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Simply Computers] Dual Core CPU?

Expand Messages
  • JaY
    To a certain extent windows does support multiple threading. Thus the hyperthreading in the newer P4 s as well as multiple CPU s being in servers. The bottle
    Message 1 of 8 , Jul 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      To a certain extent windows does support multiple threading. Thus the
      hyperthreading in the newer P4's as well as multiple CPU's being in
      servers. The bottle neck does occur at the hard disk, but when
      certain files are being accessed regularly, they pile into RAM. On a
      machine with gigs of RAM, this will be faster because the multiple
      CPU's can access this storage space. Dual core chips are able to run
      application faster if it is supported. I, personally, have never
      needed a dual core chip or a hyperthreaded one. I have a 3ghz P4 with
      HT for one of my boxes and an Athlon 2800 chip for my main box.
      Unless I am running linux on the P4 (which I am now), the Athlon beats
      it. 64 bit will be nice though, when I get around to upgrading.

      --- In simplycomputers2@yahoogroups.com, "raskclls" <raskclls@y...> wrote:
      > I'm not going to pretend that I fully understand what you just said
      > (thats way out of my league).
      > I would like to say that everything I seem to be reading (if I'm
      > reading it correctly) states that a dual core CPU can 'assign an
      > individual thread to its own processor core'. BUT, only if the
      > operating system supports it, and from what I read, Windows
      > doesn't.
      > Also you need application software support (which I personally don't
      > know of any , but that doesn't mean there isn't any).
      > So with those two things in mind, "doubling the number of CPU chips
      > doesn't double the speed of the computer", as stated.
      > I may be completley wrong on all of this, I just try to decipher
      > what I read and hope for the best.
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In simplycomputers2@yahoogroups.com, David Ron
      > <david.m.ron@g...> wrote:
      > > It's a good explanation but there is an incorrect statement in
      > there:
      > >
      > > " An application with multiple software threads will run faster on
      > a
      > > dual-core processor because the operating system can assign an
      > > individual thread to its own processor core. Multithreaded
      > applications
      > > running on a single-core processor must wait for one thread to
      > finish
      > > before another thread can be processed"
      > >
      > > This is not true. When a thread needs to go to memory or another
      > device
      > > such as a hard drive it "blocks". That is, it stops processing
      > while it
      > > waits for these transactions to take place. Meanwhile, another
      > thread
      > > of the same application or a different application entirely will
      > take
      > > over to make sure that the CPU always has something to do. It's
      > true
      > > that one thread must be stopped before another thread can start, a
      > > single thread may stop and start up again thousands of times in a
      > > minute. This is how computers appear to "multitask".
      > >
      > > This is the exact reason why doubling the number of CPU chips
      > doesn't
      > > double the speed of the computer - we've gotten smart enough to
      > keep the
      > > chip working when processes don't need them.
      > >
      > > --TwinkieStix
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Rick Shoener wrote:
      > >
      > > > >From PCWorld.com:
      > > >
      > > > Dual-Core Explained
      > > >
      > > > Several chip makers are looking to dual-core designs as a way to
      > > > increase the performance of next-generation processors without
      > the
      > > > constraints imposed by rising levels of power consumption in
      > > > single-core processors. Two common methods of improving the
      > > > performance of a single-core chip are increasing clock speed or
      > adding
      > > > cache memory, both of which require more power.
      > > >
      > > > A dual-core chip is basically two separate processors on a
      > single
      > > > chip. Those two processors can outperform single-core processors
      > on
      > > > most multithreaded applications while running at lower clock
      > speeds
      > > > and consuming less power.
      > > >
      > > > An application with multiple software threads will run faster on
      > a
      > > > dual-core processor because the operating system can assign an
      > > > individual thread to its own processor core. Multithreaded
      > > > applications running on a single-core processor must wait for
      > one
      > > > thread to finish before another thread can be processed
      > > >
      > > > Matt Day <dayboy15@y...> wrote:
      > > > What is a dual core CPU?
      > > >
      > > > __________________________________________________
      > > > Do You Yahoo!?
      > > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
      > > > http://mail.yahoo.com
      > > >
      > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > ---------------------------------
      > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > > >
      > > > To visit your group on the web, go to:
      > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/simplycomputers2/
      > > >
      > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > > > simplycomputers2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > > >
      > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
      > Service.
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > ---------------------------------
      > > > Do you Yahoo!?
      > > > Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
      > > >
      > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
      > -------
      > > > *Yahoo! Groups Links*
      > > >
      > > > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
      > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/simplycomputers2/
      > > >
      > > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > > > simplycomputers2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > > > <mailto:simplycomputers2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?
      > subject=Unsubscribe>
      > > >
      > > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
      > > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • David Ron
      Close. At any given time, the computer likely has a few thousand threads in some stage of execution. The clock, the mouse, the palm pilot alarm, and other
      Message 2 of 8 , Jul 4, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Close. At any given time, the computer likely has a few thousand
        threads in some stage of execution. The clock, the mouse, the palm
        pilot alarm, and other simple utilities each have their own thread.
        Internet explorer will spawn hundreds of threads just to download a web
        page. Several threads for each image being downloaded. Each thread
        competes for the other threads for system resources such as the Internet
        connection, RAM, and the CPU.

        Threads spend most of their time waiting for I/O (Input/Output). For
        instance, while you read your e-mail, whatever program you use to read
        your program has at least one thread waiting for you to click something
        to go on to the next message. There may be a few moving advertisements,
        each with a thread in or around the message.

        There are so many threads, that no single thread is "assigned" a CPU.
        Instead, the threads are stuck into a holding bin where the CPUs will
        pick them up. Now, when a thread goes for some I/O (reading something
        from Memory for instance) it becomes idle and pauses inside that CPU.
        Another thread is probably in a state where the I/O is complete and can
        continue execution so the CPU swapps the first thread into the L1 cache
        and pulls the other thread into the CPU from L1 cache. L1 cache is
        really fast RAM inside the CPU where the CPU can save several "CPU
        States" (Threads).

        The problem is that the memory is the most often hit place in the
        computer, and it must be shared among all of the processors. So, adding
        processors will increase the strain on the CPU chips' ability to read
        and write memory. Additionally, a copy of the operating system has to
        run on each CPU for process control. These things are considered
        overhead and are the reason why adding a processor only gives you about
        50% more raw CPU speed instead of 100% more raw CPU speed.

        Windows 2000, XP and 2003 most certainly support multiprocessor
        systems. XP Pro supports up to 4 processors I believe. Home may only
        support 1.

        Linux supports a nearly unlimited number of processors in the system.

        Now, do you we need this yet? Nope. If using windows, press
        ctrl-alt-del and look at the task manager. See the system idle
        process? That's the CPU waiting for something to do. When you see the
        computer stutter, it's normally because the system ran out of RAM and is
        using the swap space on the hard drive. I personally need more RAM
        before I need more CPU chips. I have 512 MB of RAM right now. But, I
        use my home computer mostly for e-mail, and office style work. The
        programming I do for personal use doesn't require a fast CPU for
        compiling. So, I don't need more than my AMD 1300+.

        --TwinkieStix



        raskclls wrote:

        > I'm not going to pretend that I fully understand what you just said
        > (thats way out of my league).
        > I would like to say that everything I seem to be reading (if I'm
        > reading it correctly) states that a dual core CPU can 'assign an
        > individual thread to its own processor core'. BUT, only if the
        > operating system supports it, and from what I read, Windows
        > doesn't.
        > Also you need application software support (which I personally don't
        > know of any , but that doesn't mean there isn't any).
        > So with those two things in mind, "doubling the number of CPU chips
        > doesn't double the speed of the computer", as stated.
        > I may be completley wrong on all of this, I just try to decipher
        > what I read and hope for the best.
        >
        >
        >
        > --- In simplycomputers2@yahoogroups.com, David Ron
        > <david.m.ron@g...> wrote:
        > > It's a good explanation but there is an incorrect statement in
        > there:
        > >
        > > " An application with multiple software threads will run faster on
        > a
        > > dual-core processor because the operating system can assign an
        > > individual thread to its own processor core. Multithreaded
        > applications
        > > running on a single-core processor must wait for one thread to
        > finish
        > > before another thread can be processed"
        > >
        > > This is not true. When a thread needs to go to memory or another
        > device
        > > such as a hard drive it "blocks". That is, it stops processing
        > while it
        > > waits for these transactions to take place. Meanwhile, another
        > thread
        > > of the same application or a different application entirely will
        > take
        > > over to make sure that the CPU always has something to do. It's
        > true
        > > that one thread must be stopped before another thread can start, a
        > > single thread may stop and start up again thousands of times in a
        > > minute. This is how computers appear to "multitask".
        > >
        > > This is the exact reason why doubling the number of CPU chips
        > doesn't
        > > double the speed of the computer - we've gotten smart enough to
        > keep the
        > > chip working when processes don't need them.
        > >
        > > --TwinkieStix
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Rick Shoener wrote:
        > >
        > > > >From PCWorld.com:
        > > >
        > > > Dual-Core Explained
        > > >
        > > > Several chip makers are looking to dual-core designs as a way to
        > > > increase the performance of next-generation processors without
        > the
        > > > constraints imposed by rising levels of power consumption in
        > > > single-core processors. Two common methods of improving the
        > > > performance of a single-core chip are increasing clock speed or
        > adding
        > > > cache memory, both of which require more power.
        > > >
        > > > A dual-core chip is basically two separate processors on a
        > single
        > > > chip. Those two processors can outperform single-core processors
        > on
        > > > most multithreaded applications while running at lower clock
        > speeds
        > > > and consuming less power.
        > > >
        > > > An application with multiple software threads will run faster on
        > a
        > > > dual-core processor because the operating system can assign an
        > > > individual thread to its own processor core. Multithreaded
        > > > applications running on a single-core processor must wait for
        > one
        > > > thread to finish before another thread can be processed
        > > >
        > > > Matt Day <dayboy15@y...> wrote:
        > > > What is a dual core CPU?
        > > >
        > > > __________________________________________________
        > > > Do You Yahoo!?
        > > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
        > > > http://mail.yahoo.com
        > > >
        > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > ---------------------------------
        > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
        > > >
        > > > To visit your group on the web, go to:
        > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/simplycomputers2/
        > > >
        > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > > > simplycomputers2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        > > >
        > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
        > Service.
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > ---------------------------------
        > > > Do you Yahoo!?
        > > > Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
        > > >
        > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
        > -------
        > > > *Yahoo! Groups Links*
        > > >
        > > > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
        > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/simplycomputers2/
        > > >
        > > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > > > simplycomputers2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        > > > <mailto:simplycomputers2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?
        > subject=Unsubscribe>
        > > >
        > > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
        > > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
        > > >
        > > >
        > >
        > >
        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
        >
        > * Visit your group "simplycomputers2
        > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/simplycomputers2>" on the web.
        >
        > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > simplycomputers2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        > <mailto:simplycomputers2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
        >
        > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
        > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • David Ron
        You make some interesting points: * Most people agree that the Hard Disk is too far away from the CPU to be considered a bottleneck. Instead the RAM is the
        Message 3 of 8 , Jul 4, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          You make some interesting points:

          * Most people agree that the Hard Disk is too far away from the CPU
          to be considered a bottleneck. Instead the RAM is the
          bottleneck. That is to say when the CPU reads from the hard disk,
          it sends a request for 1 MB of data to be read from the hard disk
          into memory, and then the current thread sleeps until that's
          done. Once the memory is filled, the process wakes up and reads
          from memory. So, if there are thousands of threads running,
          something else will work until the hard drive is done. This makes
          the relative slowness of the hard drive irrelevant.
          * You are commenting on where the intensivity of the task is.
          Certain tasks, like copying a CD to a hard drive will not go
          faster with two CPU chips. That's because the tasks are "hard
          drive intensive" or "I/O bound". Compare this to encoding an MP3,
          or a Movie. This is very CPU intensive or "cpu bound". A good
          movie encoder (like xvid which makes really small AVI files) will
          spawn several threads to encode chunks of the movie. All of the
          calculations are done in the CPU and adding chips will REALLY
          speed this type of thing up. Similarly, Artificial Intelligence
          and Graphics Rendering are CPU bound and therefore will benefit
          from faster or more CPUs. This includes some gaming, especially
          3-d games.
          * The only technical advantage of 64 bit chips is that they are able
          to take more RAM. When we start needing more than 4 GB of RAM,
          then we will need a 64 bit operating system and a 64 bit chip. 32
          bits (most current chips) will only address 4 GB of RAM. 64 bit
          chips will address 16,000GB of memory. The AMD 64 bit chip will
          not run in 64 bit mode unless you use a 64 bit operating system
          (which requires 64 bit drivers of which there are very few right
          now). The new AMD 64 bit chips are really fast at 32 bit stuff
          which is why so many people are buying them right now, but nobody
          is really going to use 64 bit desktops for a few (perhaps 3) years
          (Macintosh users excluded even though apple is switching back to
          32 bits after several years of 64 bit chips).


          --TwinkieStix


          JaY wrote:

          > To a certain extent windows does support multiple threading. Thus the
          > hyperthreading in the newer P4's as well as multiple CPU's being in
          > servers. The bottle neck does occur at the hard disk, but when
          > certain files are being accessed regularly, they pile into RAM. On a
          > machine with gigs of RAM, this will be faster because the multiple
          > CPU's can access this storage space. Dual core chips are able to run
          > application faster if it is supported. I, personally, have never
          > needed a dual core chip or a hyperthreaded one. I have a 3ghz P4 with
          > HT for one of my boxes and an Athlon 2800 chip for my main box.
          > Unless I am running linux on the P4 (which I am now), the Athlon beats
          > it. 64 bit will be nice though, when I get around to upgrading.
          >
          > --- In simplycomputers2@yahoogroups.com, "raskclls" <raskclls@y...> wrote:
          > > I'm not going to pretend that I fully understand what you just said
          > > (thats way out of my league).
          > > I would like to say that everything I seem to be reading (if I'm
          > > reading it correctly) states that a dual core CPU can 'assign an
          > > individual thread to its own processor core'. BUT, only if the
          > > operating system supports it, and from what I read, Windows
          > > doesn't.
          > > Also you need application software support (which I personally don't
          > > know of any , but that doesn't mean there isn't any).
          > > So with those two things in mind, "doubling the number of CPU chips
          > > doesn't double the speed of the computer", as stated.
          > > I may be completley wrong on all of this, I just try to decipher
          > > what I read and hope for the best.
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > --- In simplycomputers2@yahoogroups.com, David Ron
          > > <david.m.ron@g...> wrote:
          > > > It's a good explanation but there is an incorrect statement in
          > > there:
          > > >
          > > > " An application with multiple software threads will run faster on
          > > a
          > > > dual-core processor because the operating system can assign an
          > > > individual thread to its own processor core. Multithreaded
          > > applications
          > > > running on a single-core processor must wait for one thread to
          > > finish
          > > > before another thread can be processed"
          > > >
          > > > This is not true. When a thread needs to go to memory or another
          > > device
          > > > such as a hard drive it "blocks". That is, it stops processing
          > > while it
          > > > waits for these transactions to take place. Meanwhile, another
          > > thread
          > > > of the same application or a different application entirely will
          > > take
          > > > over to make sure that the CPU always has something to do. It's
          > > true
          > > > that one thread must be stopped before another thread can start, a
          > > > single thread may stop and start up again thousands of times in a
          > > > minute. This is how computers appear to "multitask".
          > > >
          > > > This is the exact reason why doubling the number of CPU chips
          > > doesn't
          > > > double the speed of the computer - we've gotten smart enough to
          > > keep the
          > > > chip working when processes don't need them.
          > > >
          > > > --TwinkieStix
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > Rick Shoener wrote:
          > > >
          > > > > >From PCWorld.com:
          > > > >
          > > > > Dual-Core Explained
          > > > >
          > > > > Several chip makers are looking to dual-core designs as a way to
          > > > > increase the performance of next-generation processors without
          > > the
          > > > > constraints imposed by rising levels of power consumption in
          > > > > single-core processors. Two common methods of improving the
          > > > > performance of a single-core chip are increasing clock speed or
          > > adding
          > > > > cache memory, both of which require more power.
          > > > >
          > > > > A dual-core chip is basically two separate processors on a
          > > single
          > > > > chip. Those two processors can outperform single-core processors
          > > on
          > > > > most multithreaded applications while running at lower clock
          > > speeds
          > > > > and consuming less power.
          > > > >
          > > > > An application with multiple software threads will run faster on
          > > a
          > > > > dual-core processor because the operating system can assign an
          > > > > individual thread to its own processor core. Multithreaded
          > > > > applications running on a single-core processor must wait for
          > > one
          > > > > thread to finish before another thread can be processed
          > > > >
          > > > > Matt Day <dayboy15@y...> wrote:
          > > > > What is a dual core CPU?
          > > > >
          > > > > __________________________________________________
          > > > > Do You Yahoo!?
          > > > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
          > > > > http://mail.yahoo.com
          > > > >
          > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > > ---------------------------------
          > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
          > > > >
          > > > > To visit your group on the web, go to:
          > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/simplycomputers2/
          > > > >
          > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > > > > simplycomputers2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          > > > >
          > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
          > > Service.
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > > ---------------------------------
          > > > > Do you Yahoo!?
          > > > > Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
          > > > >
          > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
          > > -------
          > > > > *Yahoo! Groups Links*
          > > > >
          > > > > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
          > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/simplycomputers2/
          > > > >
          > > > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > > > > simplycomputers2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          > > > > <mailto:simplycomputers2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?
          > > subject=Unsubscribe>
          > > > >
          > > > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
          > > > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          >
          >
          > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
          > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
          >
          > * Visit your group "simplycomputers2
          > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/simplycomputers2>" on the web.
          >
          > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > simplycomputers2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          > <mailto:simplycomputers2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
          >
          > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
          > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
          >
          >
          > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
          >


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.