Jump to content

Are Multi cores worth it.


Recommended Posts

Posted Image

By mikcannon at 2009-02-18

 

Okay enthusiasts, I play STALKER or TITAN QUEST.

Look at the cpu usage.

Is the fact that the 1st core is running at, or near, 100% mean my rig is CPU Bottlenecked?

and is it worth replacing my 5600 with a 6000?

6400 dont seem to be available in Australia.

Also, how many games are going to fully utilise multi core cpu's? (in the next couple of years)

Edited by Cespenar
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted Image

By mikcannon at 2009-02-22

 

Hopefully this works.

The link was huge. Most games don't utilize multi-cores, so that answers one question.

 

I'll ask just one question then.

Does this graf of playing S.T.A.L.K.E.R. mean my rig is CPU bottlenecked?

Edited by Cespenar
Link to post
Share on other sites

the left looks like the one percent !

 

 

i would give you an answer' but something isn't rite, it could be that you weren't playing the game at the time of the screenshot ?

 

 

bottleneck could mean having a dual core cpu and 256 megs of ram, that's a bottleneck..........

 

your cpu isn't running at 100%, look in the processes tab' check to see whats using your chip

Link to post
Share on other sites

The simple answere is that a multi-core CPU is exactly what it says. It is good for multi tasking. In other words it gives you the power to process multiple programs simultaneously provided that you have enough ram available.

 

30 years ago we were taight that a computer can only process 1 instruction at a time and for all practical purposes, the same logic still holds true today.

 

Only 1 core can access a program at a time. 2 or 4 cores cannot. If a program requires multi processes, then provided the program is written correctly, 1 core can be used for each step of a multi process program.

 

If 2 or more cores try to process the same data at the same time, the system will crash.

 

A good example is comparing a P4 3.6 ghz vs a Quad core that runs at 2.5 ghz per core for video or image processing. The older P4 @ 3.6 ghz is much faster because you can edit an image with 3.6 ghz of cpu power. With a Quad core @ 2.5 ghz, you can only use 1 core for processing an image so the P4 is 1.1 ghz faster at processing.

 

This can explain why a game such as FarCry2 runs as good on a single core as it does on a multi core system. The only difference is the graphics card for the most part.

 

2 or 4 cores cannot join together to process the same file. If the system tries to do that you would get an error saying that the 'program is already in use'.

 

If you want to run 2 separate programs/processes at the same time, then the dual core or quad core can use 2 cpu's/cores to run both at the same time.

 

If software is written to take advantage of multi cores, then multi cores will be used to process separate steps in the program.

 

Also, when you compare a new core i7 system with an EE 3.2 ghz, this changes everything because the i7 has direct memory Access whereas all the previous single, duo, and quad cores use an FSB.

 

I hope this makes sense as a simple explanation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but that is just wrong CC.

 

Multiple cores can indeed be used to process the same data at the same time and split the load across cores. Has been being done on Unix systems for a long long time.

 

It comes down to whether or not the application has been coded for and compiled for multiple cores.

 

Not only can processes be split across cores, but across cpus, and even better across whole systems, and even across whole systems using multiple cores on multple cpus.

 

On my computer right now I have applications that can and indeed do use all the cores in my system, and I can even even use all the cores when I compile applications from source with gcc, effectively cutting the time it takes by more then 50%.

 

It comes down to the application being used.

 

I am surprised being an Adobe User that you don't know these things. ;)

 

If you are getting crashes in Adobe's software when accessing multple cores it's because your machine and or software is buggy and needs to be patched.

 

Here the link for "multple CPU/core support" for Adobe CS

 

http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=3447

Edited by Bruce
Link to post
Share on other sites

I gave the simple explanation, the long version would take about 10,000 pages to explain. It is not an easy concept to grasp. I'm old school and as much as things have appeared to change over 30 years the basics have not changed.

 

The biggest problem is getting an Adobe program to release the ram that is used. Im limited to 4 GB's on a 32 bit CPU and this is a known problem. Out of 4 GB's , the program will only use about 50% in most cases. If I try to stitch a panoramic with 15-20 raw images it has the tendency to crash when I save the image file after rendering.

 

Technically, processing changes data and 2 cores cannot change data at the same time. Multi cores can process separate steps in a program but cannot use the same data simultaneously.

 

I have Adobe MC on a P4 prescott 3.6 and a Core 2 and the prescott is still a lot faster. The only difference is that the Prescott runs WinXP and the Core 2 runs on Vista. I don't think that should make any difference, or does it? :lol:

Edited by COMPUTER CRASHER
Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said previously either you have buggy machine or buggy applications.

 

It would appear you have both. :geezer:

 

Looking at the cpu usage history it seems that one core uses almost 100%.

By the time I've alt+tabbed out of the game, the actual usage in the far left is dropping fast, down past 50% till it hits about 1 to 13%.

I cant do a printscreen while playing the game as the Task Manager is on the desktop.

If I could put it in front of games, I could get an accurate usage.

Thanks, anyway.

I suppose that games wont use multi cores yet, as it seems that a multi core written game might have issues with a single core.

Time will tell.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No applications that are written to take advantage of multicores don't have problems with single cores. Such an application uses whatever is available.

 

Game developers and most software coders are simply too lazy to do the work involved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

older games were written for single core cpu's but you will find that most newer games will start to use multi cores, so depending on the game, yes only 1 core will show 100% cpu usage,yes cpu bottlenecked(limited might be a better word to use than bottlenecked), or all cores using whatever cpu usage needed to either bottleneck the cpu or graphics card/s.

 

from my limited understanding of these things. :lol:

 

:b33r:

Edited by terry1966
Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the cpu usage history it seems that one core uses almost 100%.

By the time I've alt+tabbed out of the game, the actual usage in the far left is dropping fast, down past 50% till it hits about 1 to 13%.

I cant do a printscreen while playing the game as the Task Manager is on the desktop.

If I could put it in front of games, I could get an accurate usage.

Thanks, anyway.

I suppose that games wont use multi cores yet, as it seems that a multi core written game might have issues with a single core.

Time will tell.

 

 

first i have to say' windows xp

 

if you are seeing 100% usage you may want to scan for rootkits' although we won't help you with that in user to user help' it was merely a suggestion, i don't think rootkits are optimized to utilize dual core processors :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

first i have to say' windows xp

 

if you are seeing 100% usage you may want to scan for rootkits' although we won't help you with that in user to user help' it was merely a suggestion, i don't think rootkits are optimized to utilize dual core processors :P

 

Imageshack keeps converting jpegs to .png! WHY?

B*#%^@+*^>er!

Sh*&^%)+#%[email protected]&^t! :cr@sh:

Link to post
Share on other sites

you'll likely see 100% usage no matter what you put in there as the hardware will just try to run the game w/ more frame rate as the hardware gets better.

 

if your game is playing fine at the desired resolution, then you have no problem

Link to post
Share on other sites

you'll likely see 100% usage no matter what you put in there as the hardware will just try to run the game w/ more frame rate as the hardware gets better.

 

if your game is playing fine at the desired resolution, then you have no problem

 

Now that makes sense! Thank you wdeydwondrer.

 

My last post refers to the rootkits I found on my computer.

I want to post the pic of the rootkits, as I cant do anything with them.

I know this is getting off topic now, so if I could post the pic I could get some help.

If anybody moves this post, please PM me so I can follow it.

Also, is there an alternative to imageshack?

Thanks to all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Also, is there an alternative to imageshack?

 

 

http://photobucket.com/

 

Just create a free account, upload it there and post the link.

 

P.S. If you're going to post for help about a rootkit, be a good idea to post it in our Viruses ans spyware forum,

 

http://forums.pcpitstop.com/index.php?showforum=9

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...