NotebookForums.com › Forums › Notebook Manufacturers › Dell Forums › Dell Home (Inspiron, XPS, Studio) › iXPS2 future 64bit concerns
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

iXPS2 future 64bit concerns - Page 3

post #41 of 50
3/13/05 at 5:21pm
Well, I hope you're not betting too much on the need for more CPU performance. So far, the best computer in the world is the human brain, and it runs about one instruction per milisecond. The future is in massively parallel, low-power, self-repairing machines -- like me!
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 50
3/13/05 at 6:03pm
I don't know a lot of the technical details of dual core processors, but I was under the assumption that the computer would recognize it as a single processor, which means that all software should be compatable. Also, I don't think dual core performance is going to revolutionary, it's just going pick up where faster clock speeds maxed out. Note that dual cores have much slower clock speeds, and share the L2 cache.

Also, I thought I read that Yonah would be compatable with the 915 chipset in one of those Anandtech articles on IDF, but I can't find it.
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 50
3/13/05 at 6:10pm
Dual-core literally means two CPUs on a chip. The only thing they share is the L2 cache, so the OS cannot treat it the same as a single CPU, or you'll see no benefit.
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 50
3/13/05 at 6:22pm
You're right about it not being new. We have a few 64bit dual processor SGI workstations (Octaines) at my lab that we bought six (?) years ago. The current breed of 32bit windows workstations run circles around them. Moral: 64bit is no panacea.
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 50
3/13/05 at 6:23pm
My 18 year old high school girls are fine, my college girls are fine as well. My hdd's on all my computers are well kept( a weekend task), and still i dont see why dual cores can ever be brushed off as unnecessary. On the other hand, Intel has made plenty of mistakes. Could it be that intel is run by humans, and nothing is perfect? ( except jessica simpsons breasts of course.)

I cant see why a comparison of technology six years old would be of relevancy...unless compared to other cpu's of the same year.
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 50
3/13/05 at 6:30pm
Wow, dual gf's. Much cooler than dual-core, if you ask me

And the comparison to old tech is valid. 64-bits and dual-cpus have been around for a long time, but never solved a problem that most people had.

The cool thing about 64-bits is that it lets you operate quickly on REALLY BIG numbers. Most of us don't work with REALLY BIG numbers.

The cool thing about dual-core or dual-CPU is that it scales almost linearly with the number of processes. Most of us don't run more than one process at a time.

Both technologies are solutions looking for problems.
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 50
3/13/05 at 7:19pm
Dual core will show your average Joe an advantage in only one area (but boy is it a biggie): multitasking. Having 2 cores is logically the same as dual cpu's, which means that 2 threads can be processed simultaniously. If your running just one process, you wont see any improvment (but I challenge you to find a PC that belongs to someone not technically inclined that has less than 20 processes running ) When you have word, IE, your anti-virus, an IM client, Itunes (sucks lol), ad-aware, and god knows what else running at the same time, you will see one hell of an improvment.

Edit: I forgot to mention all the damn MS processes that run by default, along with those pesky auto start apps like the ones that make my mom's pc crawl (until I clean it every other month)
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 50
3/13/05 at 7:25pm
Most of those processes on your system are sleeping, waiting for somebody to wake them up and ask them to do something. And I don't believe the OS will schedule multiple *threads* over multiple CPUs or cores.
Reply
Reply
post #49 of 50
3/13/05 at 7:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jabb
Dual core will show your average Joe an advantage in only one area (but boy is it a biggie): multitasking. Having 2 cores is logically the same as dual cpu's, which means that 2 threads can be processed simultaniously. If your running just one process, you wont see any improvment (but I challenge you to find a PC that belongs to someone not technically inclined that has less than 20 processes running ) When you have word, IE, your anti-virus, an IM client, Itunes (sucks lol), ad-aware, and god knows what else running at the same time, you will see one hell of an improvment.

Edit: I forgot to mention all the damn MS processes that run by default, along with those pesky auto start apps like the ones that make my mom's pc crawl (until I clean it every other month)
Your right about the multi tasking part seeing an improvement.
however most of the application you mentioned are event based. Word takes up zero percent cpu untill you press a key. Then it does a quick spell check and goes back to sleep. People like your mom and my wife will never ever notice. My wife has a 4 year old celeron 800Mhz XP Home with 128Mb ram and 10Gb hard drive. There is no reason for her to upgrade everyting runs great. Most non business users are in the same boat.
Maybe running a virus checker wont slow the machine down much anymore but thats only if you are runing applicaitons that dont access the hard drive becuse the virus app is hogging the harddrive pipe. Also XP always (always even withn page file set to zero) accesses the hard drive for Virtual Ram. Even if you dont need it it does because it thinks its more efficient. I could send you a link to several analysis done on this subject.

My point is simmilar to Dillberts, Business grade apps or people who crunch numbers will see a benefit. The average joe is no where near taping out current cpu abilities since there are soo many other speed bottlenecks.
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 50
3/13/05 at 7:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jabb
Dual core will show your average Joe an advantage in only one area (but boy is it a biggie): multitasking. Having 2 cores is logically the same as dual cpu's, which means that 2 threads can be processed simultaniously. If your running just one process, you wont see any improvment (but I challenge you to find a PC that belongs to someone not technically inclined that has less than 20 processes running ) When you have word, IE, your anti-virus, an IM client, Itunes (sucks lol), ad-aware, and god knows what else running at the same time, you will see one hell of an improvment.

Edit: I forgot to mention all the damn MS processes that run by default, along with those pesky auto start apps like the ones that make my mom's pc crawl (until I clean it every other month)
exactly, when i was 13 or 14 i ran 2 at the most. Aol and napster..when it was free like 1 million years ago. I am 23 now, and i constantly jam up my cpu all the way to 100% load, I then have to go downstairs to my other pc, or to the basement to another pc and start something on that or use my laptop(like word, since my laptop sucks). Then i gotta network all that back to my pc upstairs. I understand that some people would be alrigh twith doing all this, or dont even go through with this at all, since they run 1 or 3 programs at a time.

in my life though, upncoming dual cores are a blessing. I have seen some benchmarks on the amd dual and its 60-70 percent more capable than a current single core.

programs i use: dreamweaver
adobegolive
photoshop
video capture utilities
open mg
ares
firefox
sonicstage
zoombrowser
Sony's picture package
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
NotebookForums.com › Forums › Notebook Manufacturers › Dell Forums › Dell Home (Inspiron, XPS, Studio) › iXPS2 future 64bit concerns