Processors and GHZ

[Lumograph090]

What is the difference between processors?

IE. What would the difference be between an i7-920 quad-core 2.66GHZ and a 3.2 GHZ single core processor for example.

 

[Slapshot136]

it depends on what programs your trying to run, and also the generation of the chip - newer generations are more efficient, even if they run at slower clock speeds - the i7 would run circles around a P4 even if you disabled 3 cores and turned off hyperthreading simply because it can do more things per clock then a P4 could

some programs scale directly with more cores, so something like compressing a file in winrar would take about 1/8th as much time on a normal i7 as it would on a the same cpu with only 1 core and no HT, while other programs wouldn't benefit at all (like most games which are usually bound by graphics instead of the CPU)

that said, having multiple cores would also benefit if you had 2 programs that weren't multi-threaded but they both demanded high amounts of cpu time (like say itunes and a game)

also more things that affect how "good" a processor is in general:
having a large cache
being unlocked
supporting a high FSB (allows it to work with faster memory)

and finally, in the case of the i7 running a program that only used 1 thread and that being the only demanding process at the time, it would automatically shut down it's extra cores and ramp it's speed up (I think it goes up to 2.93 on a single core)

 

[Lumograph090]

That sounds about what I was assuming my self. It's nice to have it all clarified, thanks for the response.

 

[kingkingyyk3]

If you are comparing GHz on same generation of processors, then the more the GHz, the faster it is.

 

[staind25]

Just FYI, from what I hear about quad core processors, I still wouldn't buy a quad core. Dual core yes, quad core no. The reason being, the software for quad cores isn't really there yet. Two cores are finally useful; current day software will use both cores. Four cores aren't really utilized yet.

So...at the moment, I'd still rather have a faster clock with 2 cores than a slower clock with 4 cores.

But...give it a year or two and I'm sure the software will be advanced enough. The main problem is that hardware seems to develop faster than software, haha.

 

[Slapshot136]

But...give it a year or two and I'm sure the software will be advanced enough. The main problem is that hardware seems to develop faster than software, haha.

so you would upgrade your cpu in a year or two?

and I think hardware is always behind, it won't be when there is no lag and/or reasons to lower settings, but that won't be happening any time soon

even if only a few single programs use multiple cores, most people still multitask, and even something like extracting/compressing/encoding/ripping/burning happens quite often in the background

 

[seph ir oth]

so you would upgrade your cpu in a year or two?

and I think hardware is always behind, it won't be when there is no lag and/or reasons to lower settings, but that won't be happening any time soon

even if only a few single programs use multiple cores, most people still multitask, and even something like extracting/compressing/encoding/ripping/burning happens quite often in the background

Very true, I got quad core on my Win 7 computer back at my place and it can multi task like a champ. I never have to worry about my computer slowing down when I'm playing a slow-paced tower defense on Warcraft III while programming and compiling on the other. It just flows

EDIT: Btw staind, why did you bump a lot of dying posts? If people still had more questions they would bump their own threads

 

[staind25]

so you would upgrade your cpu in a year or two?

and I think hardware is always behind, it won't be when there is no lag and/or reasons to lower settings, but that won't be happening any time soon

even if only a few single programs use multiple cores, most people still multitask, and even something like extracting/compressing/encoding/ripping/burning happens quite often in the background

Well, *I* won't need to upgrade that soon (I hope), but if I had to guess, that's when quad core might start being useful. I guess I don't know for certain, but quad core technology has been around for awhile now, and it's a shame that it's still not really being taken advantage of.

Maybe in games, yeah, but for everything outside of games, I think the operating system is usually the bottleneck. I mean, you can buy the best of the hardware and still only have a mediocre experience outside of gaming, simply because the software limits you.

Yeah I guess it depends on what you use it for. A friend of mine has a quad core processor and I've observed him using it...the third and fourth cores only get like 2-3% usage on a regular basis. Kind of ridiculous.

Very true, I got quad core on my Win 7 computer back at my place and it can multi task like a champ. I never have to worry about my computer slowing down when I'm playing a slow-paced tower defense on Warcraft III while programming and compiling on the other. It just flows

EDIT: Btw staind, why did you bump a lot of dying posts? If people still had more questions they would bump their own threads

Regarding your edit, apologies for that. I had a ton of downtime last night and thought I'd contribute whatever I could. Besides, as I'm sure you know, a second or third opinion with computer questions is usually pretty valuable in confirming an answer.

EDIT: Which posts were you referring to? I'm looking through my posts and I think most of them still could've used an answer. I think there were only one or two that I would've considering "dying" threads. Just thought I'd ask so I don't do it again. I'm new to the tech board. I've been on the World Editor Help for quite some time, and I don't know enough to help out there, so I figured this was the place I can most easily "give back".

 

[seph ir oth]

I dunno, if they don't bump the post it means they found a solution or they just don't bother to check back here. So, why post? That's my thinking about it.

 

[Slapshot136]

I think the operating system is usually the bottleneck. I mean, you can buy the best of the hardware and still only have a mediocre experience outside of gaming, simply because the software limits you.

what exactly do you mean by "mediocre experience outside of gaming" ? the internet being slow? that's hardware unless your on a fiber optic line - maybe the x32 systems limit you to ~3 gb of ram, but the x64 systems support up to 192 gb if I remember right, and it's the same for all the components - the system would still be faster if you gave it faster hardware, thus it's not the bottleneck - a bottleneck would mean that the speed stays the same, regardless of upgrades to other parts

if software was the bottleneck, why do people love having render farms so much

 

[seph ir oth]

what exactly do you mean by "mediocre experience outside of gaming" ? the internet being slow? that's hardware unless your on a fiber optic line - maybe the x32 systems limit you to ~3 gb of ram, but the x64 systems support up to 192 gb if I remember right, and it's the same for all the components - the system would still be faster if you gave it faster hardware, thus it's not the bottleneck - a bottleneck would mean that the speed stays the same, regardless of upgrades to other parts

if software was the bottleneck, why do people love having render farms so much

There are such things as software limitations, though. RAM limitations on Windows Vista is 4 gigs, I believe. That's just an example off the top of my head.

 

[sqrage]

There are such things as software limitations, though. RAM limitations on Windows Vista is 4 gigs, I believe. That's just an example off the top of my head.

No, RAM limitation for 32bit is 4 gigs.

 

[Slapshot136]

There are such things as software limitations, though. RAM limitations on Windows Vista is 4 gigs, I believe. That's just an example off the top of my head.

I explained that - and it's 192 gb for the x64 systems, is there any hardware system that gets near that amount of ram? and I just looked it up, the limit on ram is 2 TB for the windows server 2008, , so let me re-phrase it and ask are there any home systems that get near 192gb of ram, or any server systems that get near 2TB? id say most systems don't even have 2TB of hard-drive space

 

[staind25]

what exactly do you mean by "mediocre experience outside of gaming" ? the internet being slow? that's hardware unless your on a fiber optic line - maybe the x32 systems limit you to ~3 gb of ram, but the x64 systems support up to 192 gb if I remember right, and it's the same for all the components - the system would still be faster if you gave it faster hardware, thus it's not the bottleneck - a bottleneck would mean that the speed stays the same, regardless of upgrades to other parts

if software was the bottleneck, why do people love having render farms so much

Haha, sorry, my explanation was kind of vague without example. I'm talking about like how Windows will slow you down, regardless of how awesome your hardware is. I mean, 99% of the time I get "slowdowns" while using my computer, it's because of the software, not my hardware. When stuff locks up, it's the software. When it crashes, it's the software. When I have to wait a couple seconds for something to load, it's the software (Easily noticed by looking at the CPU usage and RAM consumption...I could be wrong, but it should be reasonable to say that unless the CPU usage is maxed, your CPU isn't what's slowing the process down). Or am I totally in the wrong in my assumptions?

Edit: In summary, I guess my point is that if I gave my computer a much faster processor and, say, doubled the RAM, I seriously doubt I'd notice much difference outside of some very graphic-intensive gaming...which is why I only pay $800-$1000 for a computer, and not $3000.

 

[Slapshot136]

well crashes could also be hardware-related, especially ones caused by a bad PSU or high temps, and when loading something that's not off the internet, then the hard drive is the slowest part - if you got a SSD your load times would be about 1/10th of what they are

lock-ups could also be caused by damaged hardware, but those are more rare

your right that unless the cpu is at 100% then it's usually not the bottleneck (I say usually because it could be down-clocking due to heat reasons), but there are many other things that are hardware that could be slowing you down instead

that said, there is still room for improvement even outside of clock speed and memory size, the CPU could always have more cache and the memory could always be faster with tighter timings

 

[kingkingyyk3]

a bottleneck would mean that the speed stays the same, regardless of upgrades to other parts
Not necessary. It means the hardware's performance won't increase greatly even you upgrade something faster in it.

 

[Slapshot136]

a bottleneck would mean that the speed stays the same, regardless of upgrades to other parts
Not necessary. It means the hardware's performance won't increase greatly even you upgrade something faster in it.

yes it does... or can you give a specific example where it isn't true?

if the bottleneck is the hard drive, upgrading the ram, cpu, or graphics won't improve anything since those components are waiting on the hard drive

 

[staind25]

yes it does... or can you give a specific example where it isn't true?

This isn't my argument, but I can think of an example. This isn't exactly common either, so it could very well be a moot point...just something to think about, I suppose.

Say you have a huge monitor and very little VRAM. Your video card is probably the bottleneck of the computer. Adding more system RAM would probably help offset your lack of VRAM a bit, but it wouldn't fix the bottleneck either.

 

[Slapshot136]

A bottleneck is a phenomenon where the performance or capacity of an entire system is limited by a single or limited number of components or resources

in your case the bottleneck would be both the ram and the graphics card, so upgrading either would be upgrading the component(s) that are the bottleneck

 

[kingkingyyk3]

Say you have a huge monitor and very little VRAM. Your video card is probably the bottleneck of the computer. Adding more system RAM would probably help offset your lack of VRAM a bit, but it wouldn't fix the bottleneck either.
RAM has nothing to do with graphic's RAM.

if the bottleneck is the hard drive, upgrading the ram, cpu, or graphics won't improve anything since those components are waiting on the hard drive
Harddisk affects the loading time, not performance.
If you get a super graphic card, you can get performance improvement in gaming.
If you get a SSD, you won't get any performance improvement in gaming, but loading time.