This is a misunderstanding of multi-processors, whether multi-core or
multi-socket, it's the same dynamic. If I start MS Word, it uses one
processor. It doesn't know anything about multiple CPUs and doesn't know how
to take advantage of them. Now if it spawns a print job, the OS should
generally assign that to a different CPU, IF that makes sense in the overall
scheme of the load. If I start Excel, it would generally go to a different
CPU. Again, assuming other CPUs aren't already loaded. But if all I'm
running is a single application (game, business app, browser, whatever),
then that application will NOT split across CPUs unless it was explicitly
written to do so. And only applications designed to run in mulltiprocessor
or compute cluster environments will be designed to do so.
At the same price point, I can have a processor with a single core, two
cores or four cores. That single core processor will have a faster clock
speed than the 2 core, and the 2 core will have a faster clock speed than
the 4 core. Now, add on to that the partitioning of memory, and the overhead
of managing the extra cores and trying to distribute any work loads, and the
interprocess communication (IPC) that now must cross CPU boundaries (and
thus use slower mechanisms than internal CPU registers), and you begin to
see why multiple cores is not a panacea. Add to that the serious limitations
of the Intel memory transport links and off-chip memory controller, and you
can even end up with issues when you have multiple cores running multiple
processes if they're using enough memory to saturate that buss. On my dual
Xeon 5130 server (4 cores) with 16 GB of fbDIMM RAM, I can't realistically
use more than about 12 - 12.5 GB of RAM before that memory buss saturates
and the whole machine grinds to a crawl. On my quad core server, that's not
an issue. It has 16 GB of RAM and I routinely push up to 15 GB and a bit
over without an issue. (neither of the servers is CPU bound, even running
nearly a dozen Virtual Machines.)
--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
"Larry" <> wrote in message
news:EF6D73EE-F94F-44C4-9876-...
> No!! A system using dual core wheather Intel or Amd 64 should work about
> the
> same
> the difference should be only the 32 vs 64, and the data transfer rate. I
> worked with many systems using multi-processors before dual core. They
> need
> to work together to do the the job.
>
> "Clayton" wrote:
>
>> That is quite normal isn't it?
>>
>>
>> "Larry" <> wrote in message
>> news:781F1755-D34E-44E7-B6CE-...
>> > That was only an average during a program install. I was monitoring the
>> > install for usage one core reached 90% for 6 sec's or less while the
>> > other
>> > stayed at almost 0%.
>> >
>> > "Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:
>> >
>> >> 50% CPU load is quite high. What is using that much CPU?
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Charlie.
>> >> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>> >> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Larry" <> wrote in message
>> >> news:12380796-46D4-4BF7-8584-...
>> >> >I trying to boost performance on an Athlon 64 (2)core w/3Gb Ram and
>> >> >over
>> >> > 250Gb HD free space running XP Pro 64; 90% free resources and CPU
>> >> > load
>> >> > max
>> >> > avg. 50% for 6-10 sec. and max RAM only reaching 500Mb on program
>> >> > install
>> >> > or
>> >> > even running system defag. I turned page-file off and RAM usage only
>> >> > went
>> >> > up
>> >> > to 600 Mb. System did run a little faster. Is there any way to boost
>> >> > system
>> >> > speed is still running slow according to Pcpitstop tests especially
>> >> > HD
>> >> > and
>> >> > NVIDIA Gforce video. Mother board is NVIDIA and all drivers are up
>> >> > todate.
>> >>
>>
>>
Similar Threads
