Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Support > AMD X2: is the 2nd core used -- how do I know ??

Reply
Thread Tools

AMD X2: is the 2nd core used -- how do I know ??

 
 
Marcus Redd
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-06-2007
"spodosaurus" <spodosaurus@_yahoo_.com> wrote in message
news:f6lm5n$2o3g$(E-Mail Removed)...
> carrera d'olbani wrote:
>> On Jul 3, 10:09 pm, "Sleepy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> that 3600+ is a performance rating - i.e. even though the CPU runs at
>>> 1.9ghz
>>> it performs like a 3.6ghz CPU so its more than adequate.

>>
>> It occurs to me that each core (processor) runs at a speed of 1.9 GHz
>> (just like what the game detected). When the two cores run an
>> application together, their performance is equivalent to the
>> performance of a single-core processor with a speed of roughly 1.9 GHz
>> + 1.9 GHz, which is 3.8 GHz. This is where the performance rating 3600
>> (kHz) is derived from.
>>

>
> That'd be MHz, and no, it's not where the performance rating is derived
> from. It's quite an easy matter to google this.


What would you Google for?


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
OldDog
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-06-2007

"Marcus Redd" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:468e6e46$0$32357$(E-Mail Removed) ng.com...
> "spodosaurus" <spodosaurus@_yahoo_.com> wrote in message
> news:f6lm5n$2o3g$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> carrera d'olbani wrote:
>>> On Jul 3, 10:09 pm, "Sleepy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> that 3600+ is a performance rating - i.e. even though the CPU runs at
>>>> 1.9ghz
>>>> it performs like a 3.6ghz CPU so its more than adequate.
>>>
>>> It occurs to me that each core (processor) runs at a speed of 1.9 GHz
>>> (just like what the game detected). When the two cores run an
>>> application together, their performance is equivalent to the
>>> performance of a single-core processor with a speed of roughly 1.9 GHz
>>> + 1.9 GHz, which is 3.8 GHz. This is where the performance rating 3600
>>> (kHz) is derived from.
>>>

>>
>> That'd be MHz, and no, it's not where the performance rating is derived
>> from. It's quite an easy matter to google this.

>
> What would you Google for?
>


Try searching on "Performance rating for computers"

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,1...2121176,00.htm
"We've been working with industry leaders today to propose a solution... to
come up with a better way for end users to evaluate what they're really
getting," Patrick Moorhead, vice president of consumer advocacy for AMD,
said on Wednesday -- the same day AMD introduced two new Athlon XP desktop
PC processors. Moorhead said AMD is seeking feedback from software
developers, as well as from other PC-component makers.

http://news.com.com/Will+your+PC+kee...3-6050116.html
The above is Microsofts slant on performance rating...

The "Windows Performance Rating," which can be seen in the latest test
version of the operating system, evaluates components such as the processor,
the memory, the hard drive and graphics cards to come up with an overall
score.


http://www.quepublishing.com/article...?p=339099&rl=1

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...625113439.html



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ed Cregger
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-08-2007

"John Weiss" <jrweiss98155nospamatnospamcomcastdotnospamnet> wrote in
message news:(E-Mail Removed). ..
> "carrera d'olbani" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote...
>>
>> It occurs to me that each core (processor) runs at a speed of 1.9 GHz
>> (just like what the game detected). When the two cores run an
>> application together, their performance is equivalent to the
>> performance of a single-core processor with a speed of roughly 1.9 GHz
>> + 1.9 GHz, which is 3.8 GHz. This is where the performance rating 3600
>> (kHz) is derived from.

>
> No.
>
> The AMD CPU architecture is significantly different, and more efficient,
> than the old Pentium 4 architecture. The 1.9 GHz AMD is equivalent to an
> old P4 running at 3.6 GHz, according to AMD's estimates. THAT is the
> source of the "3600" designation.
>
> FWIW, the new Intel "core" (as in Core2Duo) architecture is also of a more
> efficient variety, so their clock speeds have come down significantly from
> the P4 as well.
>
>
>> So, you are saying that Half-Life 2 does not utilize the two-core
>> architecture well ? Essentially, your saying means that only one core
>> (processor) is running the application, i.e. a 1.9 GHz processor. This
>> could be too slooow. Maybe this is an explanation why the game feels
>> too slow sometimes, compared with using my previous single-processor
>> computer (even if I put the image quality settings on minimum).

>
> What was your old computer? What background apps was it running, compared
> with the new one?
>
> Game performance these days relies on the GPU as well as the CPU. Some
> parts of it may be tied to absolute CPU clock speed, while other aspects
> are tied more to GPU performance or memory bandwidth...
>
> While the game itself is only using 1 CPU core, the OS can shift other
> background tasks to the other core.
>
>
>> So, the question is: should I have gotten (in general) a dual-core
>> processor for my new gaming PC, or a single-core one ??

>
> The answer is "Maybe..."
>
> The Core2Extremes are arguably the best performing machines around. OTOH,
> if you're on a budget, you have to balance CPU, RAM, and GPU.
>
> If all you want to do is play a current-generation single-CPU-aware game,
> maybe a higher clock speed single-core CPU would have been better. For
> general use, though, dual-core CPUs have the edge.
>
>



My 32 bit 2.8 GHz Dell computer smokes my eMachines AMD 64 3200+ machine.


Ed Cregger


 
Reply With Quote
 
Les Steel
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-08-2007
Ed Cregger wrote:
> "John Weiss" <jrweiss98155nospamatnospamcomcastdotnospamnet> wrote in
> message news:(E-Mail Removed). ..
>> "carrera d'olbani" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote...
>>> It occurs to me that each core (processor) runs at a speed of 1.9 GHz
>>> (just like what the game detected). When the two cores run an
>>> application together, their performance is equivalent to the
>>> performance of a single-core processor with a speed of roughly 1.9 GHz
>>> + 1.9 GHz, which is 3.8 GHz. This is where the performance rating 3600
>>> (kHz) is derived from.

>> No.
>>
>> The AMD CPU architecture is significantly different, and more efficient,
>> than the old Pentium 4 architecture. The 1.9 GHz AMD is equivalent to an
>> old P4 running at 3.6 GHz, according to AMD's estimates. THAT is the
>> source of the "3600" designation.
>>
>> FWIW, the new Intel "core" (as in Core2Duo) architecture is also of a more
>> efficient variety, so their clock speeds have come down significantly from
>> the P4 as well.
>>
>>
>>> So, you are saying that Half-Life 2 does not utilize the two-core
>>> architecture well ? Essentially, your saying means that only one core
>>> (processor) is running the application, i.e. a 1.9 GHz processor. This
>>> could be too slooow. Maybe this is an explanation why the game feels
>>> too slow sometimes, compared with using my previous single-processor
>>> computer (even if I put the image quality settings on minimum).

>> What was your old computer? What background apps was it running, compared
>> with the new one?
>>
>> Game performance these days relies on the GPU as well as the CPU. Some
>> parts of it may be tied to absolute CPU clock speed, while other aspects
>> are tied more to GPU performance or memory bandwidth...
>>
>> While the game itself is only using 1 CPU core, the OS can shift other
>> background tasks to the other core.
>>
>>
>>> So, the question is: should I have gotten (in general) a dual-core
>>> processor for my new gaming PC, or a single-core one ??

>> The answer is "Maybe..."
>>
>> The Core2Extremes are arguably the best performing machines around. OTOH,
>> if you're on a budget, you have to balance CPU, RAM, and GPU.
>>
>> If all you want to do is play a current-generation single-CPU-aware game,
>> maybe a higher clock speed single-core CPU would have been better. For
>> general use, though, dual-core CPUs have the edge.
>>
>>

>
>
> My 32 bit 2.8 GHz Dell computer smokes my eMachines AMD 64 3200+ machine.
>
>
> Ed Cregger
>
>

Smokes it at what? Also what is the make up of your "32 bit 2.8 GHz
Dell" and your "eMachines AMD 64 3200+"

I guarantee my 32 bit* 2.4Ghz no name** PC will "smoke" yours.

*32 bit XP
**no name as in homebuilt.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Hertz_Donut
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-08-2007

"Ed Cregger" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:lV0ki.7479$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "John Weiss" <jrweiss98155nospamatnospamcomcastdotnospamnet> wrote in
> message news:(E-Mail Removed). ..
>> "carrera d'olbani" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote...
>>>
>>> It occurs to me that each core (processor) runs at a speed of 1.9 GHz
>>> (just like what the game detected). When the two cores run an
>>> application together, their performance is equivalent to the
>>> performance of a single-core processor with a speed of roughly 1.9 GHz
>>> + 1.9 GHz, which is 3.8 GHz. This is where the performance rating 3600
>>> (kHz) is derived from.

>>
>> No.
>>
>> The AMD CPU architecture is significantly different, and more efficient,
>> than the old Pentium 4 architecture. The 1.9 GHz AMD is equivalent to an
>> old P4 running at 3.6 GHz, according to AMD's estimates. THAT is the
>> source of the "3600" designation.
>>
>> FWIW, the new Intel "core" (as in Core2Duo) architecture is also of a
>> more efficient variety, so their clock speeds have come down
>> significantly from the P4 as well.
>>
>>
>>> So, you are saying that Half-Life 2 does not utilize the two-core
>>> architecture well ? Essentially, your saying means that only one core
>>> (processor) is running the application, i.e. a 1.9 GHz processor. This
>>> could be too slooow. Maybe this is an explanation why the game feels
>>> too slow sometimes, compared with using my previous single-processor
>>> computer (even if I put the image quality settings on minimum).

>>
>> What was your old computer? What background apps was it running,
>> compared with the new one?
>>
>> Game performance these days relies on the GPU as well as the CPU. Some
>> parts of it may be tied to absolute CPU clock speed, while other aspects
>> are tied more to GPU performance or memory bandwidth...
>>
>> While the game itself is only using 1 CPU core, the OS can shift other
>> background tasks to the other core.
>>
>>
>>> So, the question is: should I have gotten (in general) a dual-core
>>> processor for my new gaming PC, or a single-core one ??

>>
>> The answer is "Maybe..."
>>
>> The Core2Extremes are arguably the best performing machines around.
>> OTOH, if you're on a budget, you have to balance CPU, RAM, and GPU.
>>
>> If all you want to do is play a current-generation single-CPU-aware game,
>> maybe a higher clock speed single-core CPU would have been better. For
>> general use, though, dual-core CPUs have the edge.
>>
>>

>
>
> My 32 bit 2.8 GHz Dell computer smokes my eMachines AMD 64 3200+ machine.
>
>
> Ed Cregger
>


Your credibility just evaporated...

Honu



 
Reply With Quote
 
carrera d'olbani
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-08-2007
On Jul 5, 5:59 pm, "Sleepy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> dual-core is *definitely* the way to go so you made the right choice - no
> question about it.

....
>
> Most games that currently support multicores only use coarse threading -
> offloading one or two functions to the 2nd core.


Well, HL2 runs fine on my machine (AMD 64 X2 3600+) with its 1.9 GHz
first core. But perhaps I am glad that I got a dual core processor in
my homebuilt computer instead of single core. It is a novelty feeling
for me to see that the computer can switch between the applications
(e.g. game and word processor) smoothly. For the future games which
rely on a single core processor my computer will probably slow. I have
a GeForce 7600GT card, and it runs smoothly on standard screen
(1280x1024), and it has a grunt up its sleeve. I have in post a new
wide LCD monitor coming (LG L194WT, 1440x900). The only thing I am
sorry is that I did not buy a larger (1680x 1050) monitor LG L205WD. I
played HL2 and Q4 with the vertical resolution 1024, and the pictured
human characters looked crisp and sharp. I played with the vertical
resolution 864 pixels (as in 1156x864), and the pciture looked crap
(not crisp anymore). The vertical resolution 960 pixels (as in
1280x960) gave a semi-crisp picture in both games. This is the
vertical resolution which close to the vertical resolution of my soon-
to-arrive monitor LG L194WT. Oh crap, I cannot do anything about it
now



 
Reply With Quote
 
OldDog
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-09-2007

"Ed Cregger" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:lV0ki.7479$(E-Mail Removed)...
<snip>
>> The Core2Extremes are arguably the best performing machines around.
>> OTOH, if you're on a budget, you have to balance CPU, RAM, and GPU.
>>
>> If all you want to do is play a current-generation single-CPU-aware game,
>> maybe a higher clock speed single-core CPU would have been better. For
>> general use, though, dual-core CPUs have the edge.
>>
>>

>
>
> My 32 bit 2.8 GHz Dell computer smokes my eMachines AMD 64 3200+ machine.
>
>
> Ed Cregger


Smokes it in what?
Benchmark X?
Frames per sec in Quake IV?

Do both computers have the same amount of RAM, and what kind of RAM is
installed, are they both using the same video card, ... ?






 
Reply With Quote
 
Sleepy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-09-2007


"carrera d'olbani" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
> On Jul 5, 5:59 pm, "Sleepy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> dual-core is *definitely* the way to go so you made the right choice - no
>> question about it.

> ...
>>
>> Most games that currently support multicores only use coarse threading -
>> offloading one or two functions to the 2nd core.

>
> Well, HL2 runs fine on my machine (AMD 64 X2 3600+) with its 1.9 GHz
> first core. But perhaps I am glad that I got a dual core processor in
> my homebuilt computer instead of single core. It is a novelty feeling
> for me to see that the computer can switch between the applications
> (e.g. game and word processor) smoothly. For the future games which
> rely on a single core processor my computer will probably slow.


*any* future game should have multi-core support built in - if it doesn't
then
that's just crap programming.

> I have
> a GeForce 7600GT card, and it runs smoothly on standard screen
> (1280x1024), and it has a grunt up its sleeve. I have in post a new
> wide LCD monitor coming (LG L194WT, 1440x900). The only thing I am
> sorry is that I did not buy a larger (1680x 1050) monitor LG L205WD. I
> played HL2 and Q4 with the vertical resolution 1024, and the pictured
> human characters looked crisp and sharp. I played with the vertical
> resolution 864 pixels (as in 1156x864), and the pciture looked crap
> (not crisp anymore). The vertical resolution 960 pixels (as in
> 1280x960) gave a semi-crisp picture in both games. This is the
> vertical resolution which close to the vertical resolution of my soon-
> to-arrive monitor LG L194WT. Oh crap, I cannot do anything about it
> now


high resolutions like that are asking a lot of a 7600GT because its only
128bit
memory interface. I have a 7900GS clocked to 600/700 and still I dont play
many games at the native res of my LCD (1280x1024). Day of Defeat - I still
prefer 1024x768 with 4x AA and AF.

btw - my X2 3800 overclocks easy as pie from 10x200 to 10x240. I simply
downclock the RAM from DDR400 to DDR333 and set the HTT to 800 (or 4x) and
then raise the FSB. My mobo also allows me to run the PCI slots async
(locked at 33) so I only overclock the CPU and without any extra voltage or
cooling needed. You may want to try that with your 3600.


 
Reply With Quote
 
carrera d'olbani
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-10-2007
On Jul 9, 10:33 pm, "Sleepy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "carrera d'olbani" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>
> news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
>
> > On Jul 5, 5:59 pm, "Sleepy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> >> dual-core is *definitely* the way to go so you made the right choice - no
> >> question about it.

> > ...

>
> >> Most games that currently support multicores only use coarse threading -
> >> offloading one or two functions to the 2nd core.

>
> > Well, HL2 runs fine on my machine (AMD 64 X2 3600+) with its 1.9 GHz
> > first core. But perhaps I am glad that I got a dual core processor in
> > my homebuilt computer instead of single core. It is a novelty feeling
> > for me to see that the computer can switch between the applications
> > (e.g. game and word processor) smoothly. For the future games which
> > rely on a single core processor my computer will probably slow.

>
> *any* future game should have multi-core support built in - if it doesn't
> then
> that's just crap programming.
>
> > I have
> > a GeForce 7600GT card, and it runs smoothly on standard screen
> > (1280x1024), and it has a grunt up its sleeve. I have in post a new
> > wide LCD monitor coming (LG L194WT, 1440x900). The only thing I am
> > sorry is that I did not buy a larger (1680x 1050) monitor LG L205WD. I
> > played HL2 and Q4 with the vertical resolution 1024, and the pictured
> > human characters looked crisp and sharp. I played with the vertical
> > resolution 864 pixels (as in 1156x864), and the pciture looked crap
> > (not crisp anymore). The vertical resolution 960 pixels (as in
> > 1280x960) gave a semi-crisp picture in both games. This is the
> > vertical resolution which close to the vertical resolution of my soon-
> > to-arrive monitor LG L194WT. Oh crap, I cannot do anything about it
> > now

>
> high resolutions like that are asking a lot of a 7600GT because its only
> 128bit
> memory interface. I have a 7900GS clocked to 600/700 and still I dont play
> many games at the native res of my LCD (1280x1024). Day of Defeat - I still
> prefer 1024x768 with 4x AA and AF.


Yes, it is tru ethat 7600GT has a 128 bit only bus. However, it seems
to be seriously overclocked, and has many vertices and pipes, so it
can work on par with the 256 bit bus videocards such as ATI X1800GTO,
see e.g. http://www.digital-daily.com/video/m...gt/index02.htm

>
> btw - my X2 3800 overclocks easy as pie from 10x200 to 10x240. I simply
> downclock the RAM from DDR400 to DDR333 and set the HTT to 800 (or 4x) and
> then raise the FSB. My mobo also allows me to run the PCI slots async
> (locked at 33) so I only overclock the CPU and without any extra voltage or
> cooling needed. You may want to try that with your 3600.


Wow. I never done overclocking before. Such a wonderful world for me
to explore ahead of me. At the very moment, the speed of my CPU seems
to be OK for me. But in the future I might overclock it as a first
measure... and might buy another CPU as the second measure.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Lief
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-14-2007

"carrera d'olbani" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> Wow. I never done overclocking before. Such a wonderful world for me
> to explore ahead of me. At the very moment, the speed of my CPU seems
> to be OK for me. But in the future I might overclock it as a first
> measure... and might buy another CPU as the second measure.


Overclocking is pointless these days.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: How include a large array? Edward A. Falk C Programming 1 04-04-2013 08:07 PM
AMD Bets on Tri-Core Chips as Quad-Core Market Lags Nighthawk NZ Computing 18 11-10-2007 06:59 AM
Core Solo & Core Duo are not Core microarchitecture; 65nm Pentium M chips bigal Hardware 0 03-22-2006 11:24 AM
AMD quad-core - even 16-core!! GraB NZ Computing 2 06-16-2005 11:38 PM
AMD Sempron vs AMD Athlon Dalgibbard Computer Support 2 09-16-2004 06:40 PM



Advertisments