How much can it boost PC performance?
Worth it or not?
Apparetly up to 70% more.. if the program you are using supports multiple processors.
If not, just do two things at the same time!
For a normal or ever power user, it doesn't make much sense. Usually dual processors are ment for servers. If you get a single p4 3.4 with good memory your computer will be fast enough for anything.
For a laptop user who wants power efficiency and cost economy, it seems to make sense:
By 2006 ... two cores ... will be found in ... 70 percent of ... mobile ... products.
Parallel multi-processing is meant for achieving maximum performance-economy. Sometimes it is done more for economy. Sometimes it is done more for novel levels of performance:
Q.What about parallel machines?
A. Machines with many processors are much faster than single processors can be. Parallelism itself presents no advantages, and parallel machines are somewhat awkward to program. When extreme speed is required, it is necessary to face this awkwardness.
... My 486/50 is fast enough for the jobs I run on it. I've got a 486/33 that's serving as a mail/web server that's fast enough.
It's like dual processor systems.
You can assign one task to each processor, say Photoshop to one and The Sims 2 to the other. If you need to do two completely separate things at the same time, it's a huge boost. You can leave something rendering in 3D Studio Max for days while you use the computer normally.
You can also run two instances of a parallel task at the same time. Something like Folding at Home. I have a dual 2800+ system and I produce two times the units that I would if I only had one processor.
If software is multithreaded, the benefits can be pretty big. One process can have one thread of execution running on one processor and have another thread on the other processor.
Basically it has advantages for multitasking which is becoming more prominent.
I wouldn't worry about it right now though. It will be a while before it's really necessary on a CPU.
dual processor systems have been around for years, and lately HT((hyper threading)dual CPU emulation) has been around, and now there is a true dual core CPU out, but it is nbot a good iddea for the end user..
What makes you say that?
because it will be 5 or more years before any software company releases software with coding that will utilize a dual core system, becuase it is mainly for servers now, and they want to keep charging $1500 a copy for server software..
Just my theory..
in this case, a P4 3GHZ with HT , 256 MB AGP and 7.1 channel sound system will be good enough for all purposes.
for all purposes for a long time Saint..
Well, id tried that with Quake 3. I think it ended up being slower on dual systems. I thought that you were saying that they are just useless.
I think that they are (for the end user) right now, but soon every computer will have one. Just my prediction.
eventually, every PC will have todays "cant touch" hardware..
10 years ago, 4GHz was unthinkable without a mega super cluster computer mainframe.
Windows XP can already take advantage of dual-core processors
If 70% of brand-new laptops in 2006 come equipped with dual-core CPUs then 70% of laptop buyers in 2006 will be unable to use their new laptops for 3 years?
...Windows XP can already take advantage of dual-core processors.
uh, you forget the hardware/software will still utilize older software/hardware.. :tongue2:
bah!!! Dual core CPUs and even SMP are good for anyone. an OS will schedule processes to run on the two CPUs at the same time which means that your computer will get a process done faster because it gets more time on a CPU than if you had only one CPU.
Separate names with a comma.