I don't see the point of quad-core for multi-tasking

Discussion in 'OT Technology' started by fixthe fernback, Aug 15, 2007.

  1. fixthe fernback

    fixthe fernback New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2006
    Messages:
    19,317
    Likes Received:
    0
    With dual core, I'm noticing more and more than my CPU is never used to its full potential. The hard drives seem to massively bottleneck the computer, so I can't see how a quad-core could be useful in every day life. Sure, if you were doing something like folding then it would help, but honestly, I can see the very limited speed of the hard drive playing a factor. Maybe a raptor would help some, but all I know is that I can't afford one :o
     
  2. Doomsday

    Doomsday XXX

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2000
    Messages:
    14,902
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Minnesota
    picard.jpg

    drives = read and write
    all other tasks/processing is handled by cpu and ram
     
  3. fixthe fernback

    fixthe fernback New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2006
    Messages:
    19,317
    Likes Received:
    0
    but if you're multitasking with several programs at once, they'll all want to access the hard drive at the same time, but they can't, so then the whole thing slows down and is limited by the speed of the hard drive
     
  4. Harry Caray

    Harry Caray Fine purveyor of x.264, h.264 & TS HD-Video !!! HD

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2001
    Messages:
    17,176
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    MyCrews:4x4,SoCal,Tesla,EV's
    Yeah... like all other CPU's before this haven't been able to do this at all :rolleyes:

    You need parallelization or a KICKASS RAID controller with on-board XOR to help out here.....

    Single core or 8-core, nothing is gonna help you get your files quicker then a GOOD RAID system...
     
  5. fixthe fernback

    fixthe fernback New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2006
    Messages:
    19,317
    Likes Received:
    0
    This notion was spawned because my FX-60 machine and 2GB RAM uses the hard drive way too much and doesn't really utilize enough RAM. While doing a lot, it slows down too much.
     
  6. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    So shut off the fucking pagefile.
     
  7. fixthe fernback

    fixthe fernback New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2006
    Messages:
    19,317
    Likes Received:
    0
    I can do that :eek4: what happens when my RAM fills up?
     
  8. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    You won't fill 2GB of RAM. But if you do, Windows will just refuse to launch the next program. If it happens on a regular basis, then you need more RAM anyway.

    As a stopgap, you can switch the memory allocation to favor System Cache instead of Programs -- this will tell Windows to lean on the RAM more and the pagefile less. You do this in the Advanced tab of System Properties.

    Sorry about the profanity. I was a little torqued at the time.
     
  9. fixthe fernback

    fixthe fernback New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2006
    Messages:
    19,317
    Likes Received:
    0
    if im using photoshop or something and my RAM gets maxed, will it just say something like "out of memory?" It's not gonna crash, will it?
     
  10. P07r0457

    P07r0457 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    28,491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southern Oregon
    not sure why deuse sackrides it. I would NOT recommend disabling the pagefile.
     
  11. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    Honestly, I don't know how Photoshop will react. I've been running 2GB with no pagefile for over a year and Photoshop has never once run out of memory.

    2GB is a lot.
     
  12. skinjob

    skinjob Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2001
    Messages:
    2,337
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Aztlán
    I've forgotten what it was, but I've run into software that won't run without a pagefile.
     
  13. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh, Photoshop will bitch about it, but it will still run just fine.
     
  14. fixthe fernback

    fixthe fernback New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2006
    Messages:
    19,317
    Likes Received:
    0
    for some reason, Vista is still using the page file even though I told it not to

    Field Value
    Physical Memory
    Total 2046 MB
    Used 909 MB
    Free 1137 MB
    Utilization 44 %

    Swap Space
    Total 1965 MB
    Used 945 MB
    Free 1020 MB
    Utilization 48 %

    Virtual Memory
    Total 4012 MB
    Used 1854 MB
    Free 2157 MB
    Utilization 46 %

    That's what everest says, but in advanced options, it says 0mb swap space on all drives
     
  15. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've never understood these readouts myself. Frankly, I think most of these programs malfunction when there is no "pagefile.sys" for them to snoop around in.

    All I know is that when I shut off my pagefile, disk accesses dropped by about 75%.
     
  16. ady

    ady New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    10,959
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    UK
    You hit the nail on the head with "everyday life". Most people on here who are buying quadcore processors will only get the benefit out of it when they play a heavily taxing game that will make use of all four cores, they don't have any workload or use for 4 cores outside of that. I'm very scepticle about how many games are really going to make use of a 2.4GHz 4 core processor. I went with an E6850 dual 3GHz for my gaming system for that very reason.

    There definatly is a benefit to quad core, and even 8 core systems though. Plenty of professionals and amateurs can make use of them in many fields.
     
  17. Krazy

    Krazy OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 18, 2007
    Messages:
    5,094
    Likes Received:
    55
    Location:
    miami beach
    Watch out for great advances in AI with all these multiple core cpu's coming out.
     
  18. piratepenguin

    piratepenguin New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2006
    Messages:
    1,067
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ireland
    If you have 2GB RAM and you aren't using say much more than 50% of it, why would Windows be utilizing the pagefile?

    This is a quite related Linux technical discussion summary:
    http://kerneltrap.org/node/14148

    It's about access times (atimes) for file meta data. I particularly like the final quote.
    Now if you can disable access times in Windows, that should give you a performance boost. Though maybe Windows requires atimes for some tasks, I don't know. If you could enabled atimes per-file, that'd be ideal in that case. Not sure if any Linux filesystems can do that, but many Linux users disable atimes. Thinking about Sun King's point, it's a fucking brilliant idea.
     
  19. Penguin Man

    Penguin Man Protect Your Digital Liberties

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2002
    Messages:
    21,696
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Edmonton, AB
    :werd:

    I ran with no swap for a while, but if you understand how virtual memory actually works, you know that it's a good thing to have swap enabled.

    Edit: WRT the previous post, I always mount with noatime. It only makes sense.
     
  20. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    Penguin Man, Windows doesn't use the pagefile the way Linux does. Hell, even when you tell Windows to favor the system cache, it still puts stuff in the pagefile before it runs out of RAM -- it's just not as aggressive about it.

    Shutting off the pagefile forces Windows to do what it should do by default.
     
  21. Tom93R1

    Tom93R1 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    411
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Tempe, AZ
    I use my quad core for distributed processing projects, thats about the most use I make. In reality a single core as powerful as todays processors is probably more than 95% of all users need. But its so cheap these days there is no reason not to do it.
     
  22. Robo

    Robo New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2004
    Messages:
    13,662
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    La Nouvelle-Orléans
    You can get a slightly faster clocked C2D for the price of a quad.

    The difference in performance between 'normal' programs on that c2d and quad is usually not that great, and usually the slightly faster c2d does come out on top.

    The difference in performance between the c2d and q in programs that actually utilize the quad is usually considerably higher than that difference in 'normal' programs, and it is obviously in favor of the quad.

    :dunno:
    I dunno how clearly I explained that.
     
  23. Doomsday

    Doomsday XXX

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2000
    Messages:
    14,902
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Minnesota
    but for the same $300 price (E6850 vs Q6600)
    anyone who picks the dual core is an idiot
     
  24. piratepenguin

    piratepenguin New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2006
    Messages:
    1,067
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ireland
    http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/228408-28-e6850-q6600-price
    As I expected (I know nothing about hardware except this one thing), it just isn't that simple.
     
  25. JaJae

    JaJae New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2004
    Messages:
    5,987
    Likes Received:
    0
    I looked at the benchmarks between the E6850 and the Q6600 and didn't think the performance differences were great enough to warrant purchasing the E6850 over the Q6600. And with more programs coming out that will use multi-core processors, I chose the Q6600. I understand I'll have a small drop in performance now for certain games/programs, but the Q6600 is plenty fast enough and in my opinion will be more future-proofed.
     

Share This Page