AMD Dual Core CPU's
stsykin at gmail.com
Tue Jan 31 06:45:42 UTC 2006
Billy Verreynne (JW) wrote:
> Sasha Tsykin
>> not necessarily, eg. video conversion, image conversion, encoding,
>> compiling, etc. will always benefit from more cpu's or more cpu
> Only if the processing is multi-threaded. I thought I made that point
> pretty clear.
with these sorts of applications it usually is
>>> IMO for normal desktop use a dual-core CPU has no obvious benefits.
this is true
>>> If you are a gamer.. well, more and more games are making use of a
>>> multi-threaded design. Also on Windows, any DirectX game will by
>>> default be creating and using several DirectX threads (doing
>>> graphics, sounds, etc). In this case a dual-core CPU can increase
>>> game performance (the CPU is usually the bottleneck and not the
>> this is just wrong. If you want your games to work faster, then you
>> should by a motherboard with pci express,
> Incorrect. The major limiting factor on many games are the CPU. Not
> the VPU. Fact and not speculation.
> The majority of the work done in games are still CPU-bound.
the majority of processes are handled by the cpu, but the graphics is
usually the point where the computer can't cope. For example, my friend
has an old p4 cpu from 2 years ago with only 2Ghz and it runs games fine
with a newer graphics card. Sorry, if the cpu were the limiting factor,
than his computer would not run games better than my amd64 3000+. The
majority of processes ARE handled by the cpu, but the only one which has
actually advanced recently is graphics, therefore a good graphics card
is far more important.
As for it being hyper-threaded, it's not, that is disabled in bios
because it causes the computer to stop working (probably a motherboard
issue). So the extra performance can not be accounted for by the extra
>> While it is true that here the cpu is usually the bottleneck, it's
>> not going to help to run a multi threaded cpu because games are
>> almost always single threaded and very few take advantage of
> What did you not understand Sasha? I clearly stated that even single
> threaded games are using a multi-threaded model when running on
most aren't. You're not correct. I understood what you wrote very well,
it's just not right.
> When a game for example created a DirectSound channel (usually 24+
> channels), these are handled under the hood by async threads by the
> DirectSound sub-system.
> Which is why when you add more sound to a game, it goes slower - CPU
> requirements goes up. Thus more CPU capacity can be used to address
> the increase in CPU requirements.
if cpu requirements go up, that does not mean that extra capacity, as
you put it will help. Extra speed will. Lower latencies will. A
non-integrated sound card will (lower cpu utilization). An extra core
will not because this is not mutithreaded.
> And yes, a lot of new game designs are designed around a
> multi-threaded model in the core game engine. Look at Flight Simulator
> and X-Plane for example.
some are, most aren't.
>> Also, a faster CPU will make very little difference for gaming.
>> Ultimately, it's the graphics card that's important there.
> So you're now saying that your previous statement "While it is true
> that here the cpu is usually the bottleneck" is in fact incorrect..?
no at all. It is usually a bottleneck, just not the most important one.
Graphics provides more of a bottleneck for performance. The cpu usually
finishes all its jobs much easier and faster than the graphics card in
modern games, especially commercial ones. This still applies to
non-commercial games, although to a lesser extent, because their
graphics tend to be less advanced.
> You are very confusing.. or just plain confused yourself.
I'm neither confusing nor confused. Starting with a manners breach is
silly though, and does nothing for you argument.
> This e-mail and its contents are subject to the Telkom SA Limited
> e-mail legal notice available at
More information about the ubuntu-users