PDA

View Full Version : processer speeds?



baylensman
09-03-2008, 11:34 AM
So the system bit the big one this weekend!! time for a new one i guess.
Have a few options considering my funds availability at this time.
What I need to understand is what is the difference in "cores"
i see 2.8 ghz computers 2.8 ghz core duo computers, or even 2.8 three core and 2.8 quad core!!
whats the difference in "core" mean to a layman.
Assume all choices are vista systems with 3gb ddram and harddrives over 100gb.
What will the "core" mean to game play and internet surfing (my two big uses)
Also all the "towers" are in the same price range between $400 and $500. I've got keyboards monitors and mice galore So i'm looking at towers only from some local sources.

Remember I'm a Warforged so keep it simple
and thanks

Zenako
09-03-2008, 11:48 AM
For playing games and web browsing, having multiple cores is overkill. Multiple Cores allow applications that can multithread their processing to execute faster, or allow your computer to handle multiple programs at once with little slowdown. (Say for example you were editing a home video (you know like Warforges Gone Wild!!!) at the same time you were owning the Shroud...unlikely I know, but possible, then having a multiple core machine would make that process go smoother.) Since that is not your core interest, investing in a multiple core processor is overkill.

Now a lot of people predict that the next generation of high end games might enable multi threading and dual or quad core processors to shine, it is very unlikely you will ever find that sort of system in an MMO which needs to shoot its hardware specs a lot lower.

3 Gig of Ram is good. Get as good a Video card as you can afford, it will allow you to have a much better visual experience in this game (and others as well).

thatguy
09-03-2008, 11:53 AM
For playing games and web browsing, having multiple cores is overkill.

That is the silliest thing I have ever heard. No one builds a PC with a single core processor anymore, for gaming or otherwise.

Zenako
09-03-2008, 11:57 AM
That is the silliest thing I have ever heard.

I was assuming you are not doing them at the same time. And which games actually are coded to use multiple cores at this time? Multi player games?

If you have 5 grand to drop on a system, sure go for it, but other than bragging rights, which games can use them?

"with the typical mix of mass-market applications the main benefit to an ordinary user from a multi-core CPU will be improved multitasking performance, which may apply more often than expected. Ordinary users are already running many threads; operating systems utilize multiple threads, as well as antivirus programs and other 'background processes' including audio and video controls. The largest boost in performance will likely be noticed in improved response time while running CPU-intensive processes, like antivirus scans, defragmenting, ripping/burning media (requiring file conversion), or searching for folders. For example, if the automatic virus scan initiates while a movie is being watched, the movie is far less likely to lag, as the antivirus program will be assigned to a different processor than the processor running the movie playback."

Impaqt
09-03-2008, 11:59 AM
That is the silliest thing I have ever heard.

Agreed. Multiple COres have a plethra of uses.... Windows background stuff alone can work a sngle core in many instanctances.. Especially with Vista... How bout Virus Scanners? I'm sure no one has EVER had their Virus scanner fire up while in game and bring it to a standstill....

and just because a game CAN take advantage of multi-Threading doesnt mean a game designer would be silly enough to Require Multi-Threading. THeres no reason Turbne could add multi-threaded options inthe future.

Of course, Most of this is moot because Its difficult to even find a SIngle COre CPU these days.

Freeman
09-03-2008, 12:01 PM
I was assuming you are not doing them at the same time. And which games actually are coded to use multiple cores at this time? Multi player games?

If you have 5 grand to drop on a system, sure go for it, but other than bragging rights, which games can use them?

You don't run your operating system while you are gaming? That sounds like a very efficient setup, but I'm not sure most people are computer-savvy enough to make it work. For the rest of us, dual-core allows the OS to use one core for most of the necessary functions while the game can have another core almost all to itself. Quad-core processors might still be a stretch for some people to use, but there's no reason why anyone should buy a single core processor currently, given the prices.

Impaqt
09-03-2008, 12:02 PM
I was assuming you are not doing them at the same time. And which games actually are coded to use multiple cores at this time? Multi player games?

If you have 5 grand to drop on a system, sure go for it, but other than bragging rights, which games can use them?

FIVE GRAND???? Did I get ported back to 2002????

Heres a Dual Core Dell for $429.. With a 17" Monitor....

http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?oc=ddcwfa2&c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&pg=review&kc=productdetails~inspndt_530s

thatguy
09-03-2008, 12:15 PM
I was assuming you are not doing them at the same time. And which games actually are coded to use multiple cores at this time? Multi player games?

If you have 5 grand to drop on a system, sure go for it, but other than bragging rights, which games can use them?

Not at all, I built a quad core system for 1000 bucks. You stick with your single core slow coaches and anyone with a dual core or better will beat the **** out of your system as far as performance goes. Shakes head. Dual and quad core systems execute code faster then there single core counter parts. Everyone who builds PCs or follows the history or Intel processors should know this. But like I said, you stick with your single core system because when it comes to gaming no one would want that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-core_(computing)

This article explains why multi core systems are so much faster then there single core counterparts.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-dual-core-processor.htm

A single core would be a waste of your money.

thatguy
09-03-2008, 12:16 PM
FIVE GRAND???? Did I get ported back to 2002????

Heres a Dual Core Dell for $429.. With a 17" Monitor....

http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?oc=ddcwfa2&c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&pg=review&kc=productdetails~inspndt_530s

Wow, classic.

Impaqt
09-03-2008, 12:17 PM
Wow, classic.

Slap a $150 Video Card in it and it'll run DDO on High Settings all day long.

Zenako
09-03-2008, 12:17 PM
FIVE GRAND???? Did I get ported back to 2002????

Heres a Dual Core Dell for $429.. With a 17" Monitor....

http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?oc=ddcwfa2&c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&pg=review&kc=productdetails~inspndt_530s

Sorry just a little hyperbole and recent prices for top end builds in Max PC I read this summer...Best of the best type builds...

The point being, for just playing DDO, there is no compelling reason to spend a lot more for dual or quad cores. If the pricing is similar then giving you more forward options is great. Could it help today, perhaps, but that assumes your software can deal with it. Quite a few programs still have no clue. If you have a reasonable system, then even some background stuff should have imperceptible impact on performance. Now a full blown Virus Scan routine is another story, but hopefully one has set that to happen at unused hours of the day or night, and not during "playtime".

LewsTherin
09-03-2008, 12:25 PM
Go to Newegg.com. I built my comp for $1100 complete with quad core processor which ran about $230 and a geforce 8800gt video card which is probably 1/2 the price now than it was when i bought it.

Zenako
09-03-2008, 12:28 PM
Not at all, I built a quad core system for 1000 bucks. You stick with your single core slow coaches and anyone with a dual core or better will beat the **** out of your system as far as performance goes. Shakes head. Dual and quad core systems execute code faster then there single core counter parts. Everyone who builds PCs or follows the history or Intel processors should know this. But like I said, you stick with your single core system because when it comes to gaming no one would want that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-core_(computing)

This article explains why multi core systems are so much faster then there single core counterparts.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-dual-core-processor.htm

A single core would be a waste of your money.


Ok fine, but how does that translate into better performance in something like DDO??? Unless you have a system that is choking on the data already, how does having more excess processor capacity help any single application like this??

Impaqt
09-03-2008, 12:32 PM
Ok fine, but how does that translate into better performance in something like DDO??? Unless you have a system that is choking on the data already, how does having more excess processor capacity help any single application like this??

Because there is NO SUCH THING as running a Single Application. You are ALWAYS running Multiple applications. there is No way around it. DDO is a Game that uses a Single Core.. True.... But Look down in the lower right hand corner of your desktop.... is DDO the ONLY icon down there?

RIght now, I have
my Audio Driver/Control panel
and Video Driver/Control Panel
My Gravisense (On the laptop right now)
Panda A/V (WOrk PC. God I HATE that AV Program)
Mouse/Touchpad Driver
Windows Messenger
Active Sync
Ventrilo

and of course, that doesnt include Explorer, and the dozens of other Apps windows needs to run.

LewsTherin
09-03-2008, 12:33 PM
Ok fine, but how does that translate into better performance in something like DDO??? Unless you have a system that is choking on the data already, how does having more excess processor capacity help any single application like this??

Well some of us like to do other things while we play DDO; such as download media, surf the net, use ventrilo/teamspeak, listen to music, burn dvds or play other games too. You'd be surprised at how many programs I run while logged in to DDO.

Freeman
09-03-2008, 12:34 PM
Ok fine, but how does that translate into better performance in something like DDO??? Unless you have a system that is choking on the data already, how does having more excess processor capacity help any single application like this??

Your computer is never just running DDO. You are also running Windows, with all the necessary processes involved in that. While playing DDO, open up your Task Manager and click on the processes tab. Do you see everything listed there? Every one of those processes(Except "System Idle, of course") can potentially slow down DDO while performing normal tasks. That's why a dual-core processor is faster, since it can offload those tasks to a second processor.

thatguy
09-03-2008, 12:55 PM
I am glad some other people saw this topic. If no one else did, this poor guy would be out there looking for a Pentium 4. :eek:

BurnerD
09-03-2008, 01:00 PM
Ok fine, but how does that translate into better performance in something like DDO??? Unless you have a system that is choking on the data already, how does having more excess processor capacity help any single application like this??

As other folks her have stated running multiple cores reduces the overall application load. All OS's run a number of apps continuously and although they individually do not use much cpu, they can chew up quite a bit together. Darn near every time you load a new app on your pc it wants to install processes running in the background, regardless if the program you installed is running or not. Things like automatic updaters, scanners, indexers, etc, etc, etc. Most of them are completely unnecessary, but it is not obvious to the average user they are being installed. As I think Impaqt said Virus scanners can put a massive load on a single core machine.

The price difference between single, dual, and even quad core is not really that sigificant anymore so it shouldn't be a big factor in a purchase decision.

Dual Core at the minimum.

HumanJHawkins
09-03-2008, 01:06 PM
Ok fine, but how does that translate into better performance in something like DDO??? Unless you have a system that is choking on the data already, how does having more excess processor capacity help any single application like this??

I used to think like that. Then I tested it. There is almost nothing that is truely a single thread app anymore. For example, because all apps make system calls. And the system will often spawn a thread to handle calls when it is appropriate.

When I got my first dual proc system I expected to see very little improvement in most of what I did. I only got it to help myself learn to program in multi-threaded environments. I was surprised at how often the second processor would get used.

Just open up the task manager on a dual or quad core system and go to the performance tab. I currently have a 4 core system. When I run DDO, 3 of the 4 cores have significant use and the remaining core has higher use than idle. I know it's DDO and not some background thing because when I quit DDO the usage drops to almost zero.

Finally, it is just plain nice to have the smoothness that multiple cores produce. If some background task kicks on, you hardly notice it. THere are no brief yet annoying UI pauses while something else takes over the processor for half a second, etc.

Currently, dual core is probably the sweet spot. You can get a 3.0 GHz or better dual core cheap. To go quad core, you either have to take a slower clock rate or a significantly higher price. But if money is nhot so tight, spending the extra $150 or so for a Quad 3.0 GHz will probably pay off in the long run.

In short, if on a low budget (>$500), get a cheap dual core system with PCI x16 graphics slot, and drop a GeForce 8800GT or so in the slot. You will be happy. If on the $1000+ budget, get higher / quieter components across the board, including a really fast dual core or a pretty fast quad core.

Good Luck!

thatguy
09-03-2008, 01:07 PM
As other folks her have stated running multiple cores reduces the overall application load. All OS's run a number of apps continuously and although they individually do not use much cpu, they can chew up quite a bit together. Darn near every time you load a new app on your pc it wants to install processes running in the background, regardless if the program you installed is running or not. Things like automatic updaters, scanners, indexers, etc, etc, etc. Most of them are completely unnecessary, but it is not obvious to the average user they are being installed. As I think Impaqt said Virus scanners can put a massive load on a single core machine.

The price difference between single, dual, and even quad core is not really that sigificant anymore so it shouldn't be a big factor in a purchase decision.

Dual Core at the minimum.

Very well said.

Zenako
09-03-2008, 01:13 PM
OK, it is clear that many of you never completely read my reply's.

I time and time again offered that if you are Multi tasking, that assuming your software can handle multiple procs, that you would see a benefit. I know there are a whole pile of background bleep that is running every time you have the computer running. I also know I have nothing running other than those background apps on my gaming PC.

I also know that most new gaming systems come standard with multicore systems, since as many of you have pointed out, you never just game, but do 6 other things at the same time....(possible explains some of the AFK's....grrrr..).

I also know we are talking about DDO here, not Crysis, so the actual demands on the CPU are not extreme.

Also has Vista really ironed out its issues with Multicore Procs? I know it had a bunch last spring. (I am running XP and intend to for now...)

I am also still unconvinced that while running just the OS/normal background ops and DDO that I would actually see any noticeable difference in MY DDO gameplay between a single core and a multicore proc.

Impaqt
09-03-2008, 01:17 PM
OK, it is clear that many of you never completely read my reply's.

I time and time again offered that if you are Multi tasking, that assuming your software can handle multiple procs, that you would see a benefit. I know there are a whole pile of background bleep that is running every time you have the computer running. I also know I have nothing running other than those background apps on my gaming PC.

I also know that most new gaming systems come standard with multicore systems, since as many of you have pointed out, you never just game, but do 6 other things at the same time....(possible explains some of the AFK's....grrrr..).

I also know we are talking about DDO here, not Crysis, so the actual demands on the CPU are not extreme.

Also has Vista really ironed out its issues with Multicore Procs? I know it had a bunch last spring. (I am running XP and intend to for now...)

I am also still unconvinced that while running just the OS/normal background ops and DDO that I would actually see any difference in my DDO gameplay between a single core and a multicore proc.

Your certainly entitled to you Opinion. The rest of us will acknowledge the facts though. If you havent played on a Dual, Tripple or Quad Core machine, you really have no idea what your talking about.

Maybe I should go downto the basement and dig up my ole' Amiga System.. Or better yet my Vic-20..... WHo needs all these fancy processors nowadays?

thatguy
09-03-2008, 01:17 PM
OK, it is clear that many of you never completely read my reply's.

I time and time again offered that if you are Multi tasking, that assuming your software can handle multiple procs, that you would see a benefit. I know there are a whole pile of background bleep that is running every time you have the computer running. I also know I have nothing running other than those background apps on my gaming PC.

I also know that most new gaming systems come standard with multicore systems, since as many of you have pointed out, you never just game, but do 6 other things at the same time....(possible explains some of the AFK's....grrrr..).

I also know we are talking about DDO here, not Crysis, so the actual demands on the CPU are not extreme.

Also has Vista really ironed out its issues with Multicore Procs? I know it had a bunch last spring. (I am running XP and intend to for now...)

I am also still unconvinced that while running just the OS/normal background ops and DDO that I would actually see any difference in my DDO gameplay between a single core and a multicore proc.

As I said previously, then stick to your single core processor. :confused:

Zenako
09-03-2008, 01:37 PM
Your certainly entitled to you Opinion. The rest of us will acknowledge the facts though. If you havent played on a Dual, Tripple or Quad Core machine, you really have no idea what your talking about.

Maybe I should go downto the basement and dig up my ole' Amiga System.. Or better yet my Vic-20..... WHo needs all these fancy processors nowadays?

OK, I have not used a multicore proc in any of my home machines.

How does having one change your DDO gameplay experience?
Does it increase your FPS from 60 to 80? (video card driven I do beleive...)
Does it enhance the audio quality or tone? (nope probably just the onboard audio chips or perhaps a seperate card)
Does it affect lag from the servers (unfortunately not)...

Does it allow you to multitask the machine - quite likely. As HumanJHawkins replied, it seems smoother to him when OTHER tasks kick in. Now given the current market and the likelihood of actual multithreaded single apps being mainstream in the not too distant future it would be reasonable to hedge your bets and go for a dual or more core proc. Kinda like buying a TV that was Digital ready a few years back. Did it do anything for you back then when you were getting nothing but analog signals. Nope, but with the advent of all digital you are ready for it.

EazyWeazy
09-03-2008, 01:48 PM
To the OP,

I think you have a body of advice posted here to help you make a smart and educated purchase. Your computer is always multitasking even if you are not. Enjoy the new computer!!! :)

BurnerD
09-03-2008, 01:54 PM
OK, I have not used a multicore proc in any of my home machines.

How does having one change your DDO gameplay experience?
Does it increase your FPS from 60 to 80? (video card driven I do beleive...)
Does it enhance the audio quality or tone? (nope probably just the onboard audio chips or perhaps a seperate card)
Does it affect lag from the servers (unfortunately not)...

Does it allow you to multitask the machine - quite likely. As HumanJHawkins replied, it seems smoother to him when OTHER tasks kick in. Now given the current market and the likelihood of actual multithreaded single apps being mainstream in the not too distant future it would be reasonable to hedge your bets and go for a dual or more core proc. Kinda like buying a TV that was Digital ready a few years back. Did it do anything for you back then when you were getting nothing but analog signals. Nope, but with the advent of all digital you are ready for it.

It may not affect server lag, but it can prevent bottleneck lag. This is the lag that can occur when a cpu intensive process kicks in (a virus scan for example) and momentarily stalls your game becuase it cannot execute the code. I have run this game on single, dual, and quad core machines and know that I have yet to experience any bottleneck issues on the dual or quad core. I did occasionally exeprience bottlenck lag on the single core... not only in DDO, but other games as well.

A well set up, well-maintained single core system with a reasonable number of prcesses running can run DDO . Most folks aren't knowledgeable enough to maintain their systems properly to keep them running optimally for any epriod of time however. A dual or quad core system will have more head room in it's capability to execute code. The price difference is not large enough to warrant skimping on a CPU. I build a lot of systems as a side business so I do have experience with a variety of configurations... does it make me an expert... not necessarily, but I do have points of comparison to work off of....

I respect your opinion and am not trying to flame you Zenako, I just don't think the cost savings you get on a single core cpu warrant buying one presently. Single core CPU's are pretty rare now and will probably be completely unavailable to purchase new within the next year. A dual core cpu will be a viable component for awhile at least... maybe even two years :)

Impaqt
09-03-2008, 01:58 PM
OK, I have not used a multicore proc in any of my home machines.

How does having one change your DDO gameplay experience?
Does it increase your FPS from 60 to 80? (video card driven I do beleive...) Yes, It can.
Does it enhance the audio quality or tone? (nope probably just the onboard audio chips or perhaps a seperate card) maybe not the tonal quality, but your Audio Card uses CPU Power.... By Offloading this processing to another core, you can gain Framerates above.
Does it affect lag from the servers (unfortunately not)... Most people blame too much Lag on the Servers. When EVERYONE in the party lags simultaneously, THATS server Lag. when 10 Devils are Porting around at the same Time.. THATS Server Lag. Just about every other instance is Internet or Client based. Offloading ansilary Processes to another core reduces a LOT of lag.

Does it allow you to multitask the machine - quite likely. As HumanJHawkins replied, it seems smoother to him when OTHER tasks kick in. Now given the current market and the likelihood of actual multithreaded single apps being mainstream in the not too distant future it would be reasonable to hedge your bets and go for a dual or more core proc. Kinda like buying a TV that was Digital ready a few years back. Did it do anything for you back then when you were getting nothing but analog signals. Nope, but with the advent of all digital you are ready for it.

You seem Bound to determine to not accept the benefits of Multi-Core CPU's... But your Example of TV's kinda sheds some light on this......

Being in the TV Industry I can Tell you, without A doubt, that Digital programming has been around since the very first Digital Ready Televisions. High Definition programming of some form or fashion has also been around since the very first High Definition Ready Televisions were introduced. Its actually a Fantastic analogy when ya think about it..... Analog Broadcasts are going away very soon. there are still a few people left that are clinging to their trusty ole' 1970 Magnavox's and getting their TV via a Broadcast antenna.
"It still looks Fine" they say..... and they can certainly head over to Wal-mart and buy a Digital to analog convertor box and continue to use that antiquated technology with the high resolution signals we have today. Does it still Work? Absolutely. is there much more and better stuff out there? Yes. There is.

So.... Hows that old Zenith 26" Console TV Treatin ya these days Zen?

Freeman
09-03-2008, 02:01 PM
Seems like a moot point anyway. I did a quick check on NewEgg, and they didn't have any single-core processors more powerful than a Pentium 4 or AMD 3800+, both of which are completely outclassed by current processors.

Zenako
09-03-2008, 02:23 PM
You seem Bound to determine to not accept the benefits of Multi-Core CPU's... But your Example of TV's kinda sheds some light on this......

Being in the TV Industry I can Tell you, without A doubt, that Digital programming has been around since the very first Digital Ready Televisions. High Definition programming of some form or fashion has also been around since the very first High Definition Ready Televisions were introduced. Its actually a Fantastic analogy when ya think about it..... Analog Broadcasts are going away very soon. there are still a few people left that are clinging to their trusty ole' 1970 Magnavox's and getting their TV via a Broadcast antenna.
"It still looks Fine" they say..... and they can certainly head over to Wal-mart and buy a Digital to analog convertor box and continue to use that antiquated technology with the high resolution signals we have today. Does it still Work? Absolutely. is there much more and better stuff out there? Yes. There is.

So.... Hows that old Zenith 26" Console TV Treatin ya these days Zen?


Don't know how its doing at the dump, ditched the ole 22" one a number of years back for a 46" HD set and digital cable:)...


Perhaps my strawman "clean system" is too much of a reach in this case. I have different PC's for different uses ( and that makes the rest of the family happy ). One older one handles all the email chores, most other stuff like home inventories, MSMoney, etc. The newer machine pretty much only does gaming and other than IE and Security software has little else loaded, so I do run a pretty lean machine.

baylensman
09-03-2008, 02:57 PM
SO assuming a parity of price on close outs at the local computer guy $450.00
all system 2.8 ghz quad with 3 gb a 500 gb harddrive and nivida gforce video card (128 mb i think) is better buy the 2.8 ghz standard with 1 gb and 620 mb hard drvie and video card?

BurnerD
09-03-2008, 03:15 PM
SO assuming a parity of price on close outs at the local computer guy $450.00
all system 2.8 ghz quad with 3 gb a 500 gb harddrive and nivida gforce video card (128 mb i think) is better buy the 2.8 ghz standard with 1 gb and 620 mb hard drvie and video card?


you don't gain anything in performance from a larger hard drive (if all other drive specs are equal it actually hurts performance). In your comparison the first system wins hands down based on cpu and ram... assuming that the video cards are equal.

If you find a system get the specifics of the video card before you buy. The video card plays a huge part on how games will play.

A good video card will cost between 100 and 200 dollars now (cutting edge cards go for much more). 512mb of ram on a video card is preferrable, although 256 would still be ok. I would stay away from 128 if possible.

HumanJHawkins
09-03-2008, 03:59 PM
you don't gain anything in performance from a larger hard drive (if all other drive specs are equal it actually hurts performance). <CUT>

Not that it changes the result of your analysis, but this is not true. Hard disk performance is affected by three things:

Rotational speed (More is better)
Data density (More dense is better)
Platter size (Bigger is better at the same data density)So, if you have a single platter 100GB drive and a dual platter 200GB drive of the same size and rotational speed, the performance will be equal. However, if you have a single platter 100GB drive and a single platter 200GB drive of the same size and rotational speed, the 200GB drive will have clearly better performance. This is because the platter is traveling the same rotational distance, but there is more data crammed into that space that can be read in the same time period.

Platter size is a redundant factor though... It is only relevant at the same data density. So basically you should just look at the amount of storage per platter and rotational speed when determining performance. And this is splitting hairs since caching will hide a great deal of the difference in drive performance anyway.

thatguy
09-03-2008, 05:39 PM
OK, I have not used a multicore proc in any of my home machines.

How does having one change your DDO gameplay experience?
Does it increase your FPS from 60 to 80? (video card driven I do beleive...)
Does it enhance the audio quality or tone? (nope probably just the onboard audio chips or perhaps a seperate card)
Does it affect lag from the servers (unfortunately not)...

Does it allow you to multitask the machine - quite likely. As HumanJHawkins replied, it seems smoother to him when OTHER tasks kick in. Now given the current market and the likelihood of actual multithreaded single apps being mainstream in the not too distant future it would be reasonable to hedge your bets and go for a dual or more core proc. Kinda like buying a TV that was Digital ready a few years back. Did it do anything for you back then when you were getting nothing but analog signals. Nope, but with the advent of all digital you are ready for it.

Do you work in IT? Because I think if you did your fellow IT Professionals would be telling you the same thing we are. On the other hand you seem quite happy with what you have, more power too you. If you saw a side by side comparison with the best you have and the best I have you would see the light, till that time though I think you should do more reading on the subject and save us all the trouble.

Zenako
09-04-2008, 10:08 AM
Baylensman...you have some good answers above, the following is just a side issue to the whole point. Given the current market, there is little economic reason to not go with the greater potental.


Do you work in IT? Because I think if you did your fellow IT Professionals would be telling you the same thing we are. On the other hand you seem quite happy with what you have, more power too you. If you saw a side by side comparison with the best you have and the best I have you would see the light, till that time though I think you should do more reading on the subject and save us all the trouble.

And if the IT professionals just replied with, get this, it is "better" without any quantification, I would reject that purchase order.

For something to be better, there has to be some objective metric that supports that claim. Unless the software is coded to be able to utilize multiple cores, any single program would not benefit. I understand that the normal suite of programs on virtually every computer put collective levels of demands on those machines, and the CPU. That when those demands exceed the proceesing capacity things slow down, stall and even sometimes crash. Been there, done that. In those cases having hardware that shunts different programs to different cores helps immensely. I understand that.

However, the case I was proposing still has not been answered (and I suspect no one really can answer since it involves setups not easily achieved just for making this point.) If I were to build two identical machines. Same motherboard (assuming it supports both single and multicore procs), same RAM, same HD, same Video cards, etc. Everything the same except for the CPU. Clean system, nothing but the OS running on it. No Ventrilo, no IE, no Virus scanning, no Autodate of Adobe, MS, etc. Nothing. Boot up DDO on both. Would my DDO experience be different on the single core machine from the multicore machine? The closest someone came to quatifying that was saying it was "smoother" when OTHER programs tried to run at the same time. That is what I was trying to get to. Now the simple answer is that the scenario is not realistic for the way people run the game or their computers, that everyone has other apps running on their machine all the time.

If I were lagging and having the same issues I see and hear some players having, and I was trying to multitask on the gaming machine, it would be a no brainer to consider a multicore proc. Whatever...

Freeman
09-04-2008, 10:40 AM
However, the case I was proposing still has not been answered (and I suspect no one really can answer since it involves setups not easily achieved just for making this point.) If I were to build two identical machines. Same motherboard (assuming it supports both single and multicore procs), same RAM, same HD, same Video cards, etc. Everything the same except for the CPU. Clean system, nothing but the OS running on it. No Ventrilo, no IE, no Virus scanning, no Autodate of Adobe, MS, etc. Nothing. Boot up DDO on both. Would my DDO experience be different on the single core machine from the multicore machine? The closest someone came to quatifying that was saying it was "smoother" when OTHER programs tried to run at the same time. That is what I was trying to get to. Now the simple answer is that the scenario is not realistic for the way people run the game or their computers, that everyone has other apps running on their machine all the time.

Actually, this has been done, many times, by multiple reviewers, back when dual-core processors first came out, and also when the Intel Core 2 Duo processors were released. Although they didn't test DDO specifically, they tested multiple games that should be an equivalent load on the system. Here are a couple of links: AMD's first dual-core processors (http://techreport.com/articles.x/8295/16). Core 2 Duo (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=1) You'll note that both of these reviews were from roughly 2006. Even two years ago, faster-clocked single core CPUs just couldn't compete with slower-clocked multi-core CPUs. The difference now would even be more pronounced.

In terms of actual gaming performance, the dual-core processors nearly always outperformed their single core counterparts. There were fairly large gains in frame rates. And that was based on their performance two years ago. Single core processors have not advanced since then, because they were considered a dead end. Meanwhile, multi-core processors have advanced significantly in that time frame, to the point where there's no current basis to compare single core and multi core systems. It would be like trying to compare a Pentium to a 286 processor. At best, you could say that a single-core system might have performed as well or better than a dual core two years ago. Now, there's no way any commercially available single-core processor can outperform a current dual-core processor.

BurnerD
09-04-2008, 12:12 PM
Not that it changes the result of your analysis, but this is not true. Hard disk performance is affected by three things:

Rotational speed (More is better)
Data density (More dense is better)
Platter size (Bigger is better at the same data density)So, if you have a single platter 100GB drive and a dual platter 200GB drive of the same size and rotational speed, the performance will be equal. However, if you have a single platter 100GB drive and a single platter 200GB drive of the same size and rotational speed, the 200GB drive will have clearly better performance. This is because the platter is traveling the same rotational distance, but there is more data crammed into that space that can be read in the same time period.

Platter size is a redundant factor though... It is only relevant at the same data density. So basically you should just look at the amount of storage per platter and rotational speed when determining performance. And this is splitting hairs since caching will hide a great deal of the difference in drive performance anyway.


Please note that I said if all other drive specs are equal.. this refers to your 3 points. You are correct though.

BurnerD
09-04-2008, 12:13 PM
Baylensman...you have some good answers above, the following is just a side issue to the whole point. Given the current market, there is little economic reason to not go with the greater potental.



And if the IT professionals just replied with, get this, it is "better" without any quantification, I would reject that purchase order.

For something to be better, there has to be some objective metric that supports that claim. Unless the software is coded to be able to utilize multiple cores, any single program would not benefit. I understand that the normal suite of programs on virtually every computer put collective levels of demands on those machines, and the CPU. That when those demands exceed the proceesing capacity things slow down, stall and even sometimes crash. Been there, done that. In those cases having hardware that shunts different programs to different cores helps immensely. I understand that.

However, the case I was proposing still has not been answered (and I suspect no one really can answer since it involves setups not easily achieved just for making this point.) If I were to build two identical machines. Same motherboard (assuming it supports both single and multicore procs), same RAM, same HD, same Video cards, etc. Everything the same except for the CPU. Clean system, nothing but the OS running on it. No Ventrilo, no IE, no Virus scanning, no Autodate of Adobe, MS, etc. Nothing. Boot up DDO on both. Would my DDO experience be different on the single core machine from the multicore machine? The closest someone came to quatifying that was saying it was "smoother" when OTHER programs tried to run at the same time. That is what I was trying to get to. Now the simple answer is that the scenario is not realistic for the way people run the game or their computers, that everyone has other apps running on their machine all the time.

If I were lagging and having the same issues I see and hear some players having, and I was trying to multitask on the gaming machine, it would be a no brainer to consider a multicore proc. Whatever...

Actually i did reply that a well maintained single core processor machine with a reasonable number of processes running would run DDO fine....

"A well set up, well-maintained single core system with a reasonable number of prcesses running can run DDO . Most folks aren't knowledgeable enough to maintain their systems properly to keep them running optimally for any period of time however"

Zenako
09-04-2008, 12:45 PM
Actually, this has been done, many times, by multiple reviewers, back when dual-core processors first came out, and also when the Intel Core 2 Duo processors were released. Although they didn't test DDO specifically, they tested multiple games that should be an equivalent load on the system. Here are a couple of links: AMD's first dual-core processors (http://techreport.com/articles.x/8295/16). Core 2 Duo (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=1) You'll note that both of these reviews were from roughly 2006. Even two years ago, faster-clocked single core CPUs just couldn't compete with slower-clocked multi-core CPUs. The difference now would even be more pronounced.

In terms of actual gaming performance, the dual-core processors nearly always outperformed their single core counterparts. There were fairly large gains in frame rates. And that was based on their performance two years ago. Single core processors have not advanced since then, because they were considered a dead end. Meanwhile, multi-core processors have advanced significantly in that time frame, to the point where there's no current basis to compare single core and multi core systems. It would be like trying to compare a Pentium to a 286 processor. At best, you could say that a single-core system might have performed as well or better than a dual core two years ago. Now, there's no way any commercially available single-core processor can outperform a current dual-core processor.


Thanks for the links, but I think you helped my point more...I quote from Page 5 of the first link...

Gaming performance
Up next are some gaming tests, which will essentially serve to illustrate the futility of running a dual-core processor in a single-threaded application. Notice that we've included above each result a little graph generated by the Windows Task Manager as the benchmark ran on our dual Opteron 275 system (with four total CPU cores.) This should give you some indication of the amount of threading in the application. In some cases with single-threaded apps like the games below, the task will oscillate back and forth between one CPU and the next, but total utilization generally won't go above 50% for a dual-core or 25% for a quad-core (or quad-front-end, in the case of the XE 840 with Hyper-Threading) system.


Which is what I have been thinking all along. Unless you have a program set up to utilize multiple procs, it does not make much of a difference...

BurnerD
09-04-2008, 12:56 PM
Thanks for the links, but I think you helped my point more...I quote from Page 5 of the first link...

Gaming performance
Up next are some gaming tests, which will essentially serve to illustrate the futility of running a dual-core processor in a single-threaded application. Notice that we've included above each result a little graph generated by the Windows Task Manager as the benchmark ran on our dual Opteron 275 system (with four total CPU cores.) This should give you some indication of the amount of threading in the application. In some cases with single-threaded apps like the games below, the task will oscillate back and forth between one CPU and the next, but total utilization generally won't go above 50% for a dual-core or 25% for a quad-core (or quad-front-end, in the case of the XE 840 with Hyper-Threading) system.


Which is what I have been thinking all along. Unless you have a program set up to utilize multiple procs, it does not make much of a difference...

I think there are two different points being argued here.

1. Your point that a program not coded to take advantage of multiple cores will run equally well on a single core or multiple cores is CORRECT.

2. The point alot of us were trying to make is that the overall performance of your system WILL improve with a multi core processor. This can have a positive impact on your gameplay experience. While DDO itself does not benefit your OS will. If the OS is bottlenecking all applications suffer.. including DDO. You have a system which you take care of and pretty much specifically use for DDO so you have a fairly controlled enviroment. 95% of computer users do not.

Good dicsussion though.

Freeman
09-04-2008, 01:37 PM
Which is what I have been thinking all along. Unless you have a program set up to utilize multiple procs, it does not make much of a difference...

And yet, the dual-core processor outperformed the faster single-core processor in 2 out of 3 gaming tests they did. And that was from the first gen dual-core processors over three years ago. The Core2Duos won every single benchmark or test they ran them in, against AMD's dual-core processors as well as single-core processors from both companies. That was the state of dual-core processors two years ago. They are even faster now. If single-core processors were actually better for gaming, they would still be available, and likely in high demand. I've linked to tests where with as close to the same setup as physically possible, the dual-core outperforms faster single-core processors in single-threaded games. Real tests performed on real systems. I honestly don't think there's anything else I can do to convince you, since your counter-argument is for games and systems that don't actually exist.

And actually, BurnerD, your first point is no longer true either. It was true back when dual-core processors first came out. But any game will run better on current multi-core CPUs than they would on any available single core processors. That's because development of single core processors for PCs stopped some time ago, and multi-core processors have far exceeded them. Regardless of the number of cores, current processors are all superior to single core processors, even for single threaded apps, due to overall advances in architecture.

BurnerD
09-04-2008, 02:05 PM
And yet, the dual-core processor outperformed the faster single-core processor in 2 out of 3 gaming tests they did. And that was from the first gen dual-core processors over three years ago. The Core2Duos won every single benchmark or test they ran them in, against AMD's dual-core processors as well as single-core processors from both companies. That was the state of dual-core processors two years ago. They are even faster now. If single-core processors were actually better for gaming, they would still be available, and likely in high demand. I've linked to tests where with as close to the same setup as physically possible, the dual-core outperforms faster single-core processors in single-threaded games. Real tests performed on real systems. I honestly don't think there's anything else I can do to convince you, since your counter-argument is for games and systems that don't actually exist.

And actually, BurnerD, your first point is no longer true either. It was true back when dual-core processors first came out. But any game will run better on current multi-core CPUs than they would on any available single core processors. That's because development of single core processors for PCs stopped some time ago, and multi-core processors have far exceeded them. Regardless of the number of cores, current processors are all superior to single core processors, even for single threaded apps, due to overall advances in architecture.

Yeah your point is a good one. Due to better overall architecture the dual core would perform better. I guess I was trying to end the discussion by agreeing that a single core and dual core of similar architecture would run the same, but I did not say that in my post.

Freeman
09-04-2008, 02:13 PM
Yeah your point is a good one. Due to better overall architecture the dual core would perform better. I guess I was trying to end the discussion by agreeing that a single core and dual core of similar architecture would run the same, but I did not say that in my post.

I know you are just trying to end the argument, but I'm having fun with it :p It is probably best to let it die though. Since there aren't any decent single-core processors available anymore, it is a completely hypothetical argument to say the least. But I'm a geek, so I have trouble letting these things go :D

BurnerD
09-04-2008, 02:15 PM
I know you are just trying to end the argument, but I'm having fun with it :p It is probably best to let it die though. Since there aren't any decent single-core processors available anymore, it is a completely hypothetical argument to say the least. But I'm a geek, so I have trouble letting these things go :D

:D I know what you mean.

HumanJHawkins
09-04-2008, 05:31 PM
Please note that I said if all other drive specs are equal.. this refers to your 3 points. You are correct though.

Not to nitpick (but I'm bored, so I guess I will nitpick :rolleyes: ), if all other specs are equal then the higher capacity drive will be faster. Because when all other specs are equal, higher capacity means higher data density. Plus I think your statement that the higher capacity drive would be slower is not even true if the extra capacity is obtained by adding platters. Because the physical components are so much slower than the electronic components and each platter has the same speed toward getting at data which might be stored on it. So I think the only two options are that the speed will be equal, or the higher capacity drive will be faster.

Of course there is also a threshold where increasing capacity without increasing cache could result in a slow-down for larger drives. I don't think that happens in practical use these days because the cache is usually safely above what is strictly required. But if that's where you are coming from, then touche on me... the point is yours.

Cheers!

BurnerD
09-05-2008, 09:42 AM
when you are right. I looked at some current drive specs and see that the seek times are equal for different capacities so your comments are correct :)