CPU ceiling?
in [Home Built PC]
|
From: Sjouke Burry on 10 Mar 2010 23:50 The Seabat wrote: > On 10 Mar 2010 09:45:40 GMT, John Doe <jdoe(a)usenetlove.invalid> wrote: > >>> LSMFT <boleyn7 aol.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Are we stuck around 3ghz? I haven't seen much speed improvement >>>> in years other than more cores and 64 bit. Some 4ghz >>>> around, seems like we should be at 7 or 10 ghz by now. >>> More cores equals tremendous speed improvements. > > Not true. Two 3GHz cores don't give you a 6GHz CPU. It gives you more > productivity, but the speed is relative. If you have a race car > running at 200mph around a track and add another car doing 200 mph you > don't end up with one or two cars doing 400 mph! It does allow you do > double your production. Just my $.02 worth. > > And that theoretical speedup of more than 1 core wil only work when there is no competition on the memory bus and/or disks and other hardware. Worst case there can be almost no improvement, when there is a lot of disk i/o.
From: John Doe on 11 Mar 2010 03:14 The Seabat <seabat NOSPAMboardermail.com> wrote: > John Doe <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> wrote: >> LSMFT <boleyn7 aol.com> wrote: >>> Are we stuck around 3ghz? I haven't seen much speed >>> improvement in years other than more cores and 64 bit. Some >>> 4ghz around, seems like we should be at 7 or 10 ghz by now. >> >> More cores equals tremendous speed improvements. > > Not true. Says some nobody who is afraid to have his posts archived... > Two 3GHz cores don't give you a 6GHz CPU. Computer quickness is measured by gigaflops, not single CPU speed. Multiple CPU cores multiplies the processing power/speed. > It gives you more productivity, but the speed is relative. That is clueless babbling. -- > If you have a race car running at 200mph around a track and add > another car doing 200 mph you don't end up with one or two cars > doing 400 mph! It does allow you do double your production. > Just my $.02 worth. > > > -- > The seabat > Filtering GoogleGroups & Goobers with extreme prejudice! > Usenet Improvement Project: R.I.P. Lee aka Blinky the Shark > > Path: news.astraweb.com!border5.newsrouter.astraweb.com!news.glorb.com!news2.glorb.com!news.mixmin.net!feeder.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail > From: The Seabat <seabat NOSPAMboardermail.com> > Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt > Subject: Re: CPU ceiling? > Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 22:09:55 -0600 > Organization: A noiseless patient Spider > Lines: 21 > Message-ID: <c1rgp59jq2a8k3s3qtfvlg6hetich4uhfe 4ax.com> > References: <TeAln.27153$sx5.13260 newsfe16.iad> <4b976a43$0$10941$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Injection-Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 04:10:08 +0000 (UTC) > Injection-Info: feeder.eternal-september.org; posting-host="riUU62Qv9SPppdAYQ95lVw"; logging-data="21413"; mail-complaints-to="abuse eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18OJivwiX9YMTX5mRw7DvhN" > X-No-Archive: yes > X-NFilter: 1.2.0 > X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) > Cancel-Lock: sha1:RVze1cAOB2bkhRiz2u1S5TSVd44= sha1:onSuXR0rH8Z/B3ZzlprPIUkUVCY= >
From: Flasherly on 11 Mar 2010 17:50 On Mar 10, 8:49 pm, "SteveH" <steve.houghREM...(a)THISblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > > Taking the red pills this week then? Good one, also tough - "the" definitive inspiration behind The Matrix. Hire a team of scripters, I suppose, to write the dialog according to whatever flavor whomever has been reading of late. Doubt it's a conversant as Blade Runner status, although Machine Central - that Platonic scene spin with Neo arguing with prior instances of a collective-man challenging a mechanistic world ordering - appears to have gotten respective due in discussion forums. - First thing every morning before you arise say out loud, "I believe," three times. -Ovid
From: John Doe on 12 Mar 2010 11:24 The Seabat <seabat NOSPAMboardermail.com> wrote: <runs off to play with his imaginary kill file friend> May as well... I know that multiple cores CPUs are tremendously faster than single core CPUs, partly from experience. My upgrade path... Athlon XP 3000+ (400 MHz FSB) Core 2 Duo E6850, 3 GHz Core 2 Quad Q9550, 2.83 GHz Playing Forged Alliance. When using only one core, the one core quickly maxes out and makes the game slow and choppy. Using two cores makes the game playable except on big maps with many players, both cores can be maxed out. Using four cores makes it run smoothly in all circumstances. If you think that clock speed is the only measure of CPU quickness, you are horribly ignorant. If you think that four is bigger than three, you are right, but you do not get a prize for that.
From: Marten Kemp on 13 Mar 2010 06:09
John Doe wrote: > LSMFT <boleyn7 aol.com> wrote: > >> Are we stuck around 3ghz? I haven't seen much speed improvement >> in years other than more cores and 64 bit. Some 4ghz >> around, seems like we should be at 7 or 10 ghz by now. > > More cores equals tremendous speed improvements. Only for OSen and applications which can make effective use of multiple CPUs. Once Upon A Time the rule-of-opposable-digit was that about 20% of the cycles of an additional CPU were consumed as overhead. -- -- Marten Kemp (Fix ISP to reply) You can't help being ignorant 'cause there's always something you don't know; what you can't be is stupid. |