Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Should I upgrade my 1 core PC now
to a 4 cores, or should I wait for 8 cores 32nm Bulldozer Orochi?
Thanx for any advices Smile
[Image: 53146021.jpg]

Sponsored links

the 8cores 32nm bulldozer Orochi has a tight roadmap with definite TTA and final cost. Your upgrade should be planed in the same fashion.
If you have the time and the budget (for it and all the support hardware) the answer is a big YES, go for Orochi, kokoro within!!!
Imagination is where we are truly real
Do you plan on use much software that makes use of that many cores?
Core i5 3570k -- Geforce GTX 670  --  Windows 7 x64
Almost everything in the PC world will be more and more going to use this scalability, Shadow lady, and even multi tasking benefits on it already.
Imagination is where we are truly real
As a weaboo, I like the name Orochi. The current P4 I'm using is really crappy. Intel will build their sand bridges first, but AMD will BULLDOZE them easily with better price / performance :V
Bit premature to judge that, eh? Tongue2
But yeah, if you can afford it then get rid of the P4.
Check if you can't simply change it to a Core 2 Duo on your board.
Big performance boost for relatively cheap Wink
yes, but for some reason i think by his statement of considering to wait for 8cores n32 AMD tells the budget is not the main concern there Smile
Imagination is where we are truly real
Well, 8 cores == useless for end-user. There is almost NO task that require such number of cores and ant of them is not user-used. And for 5 years this tendency would not changed. Even more, the maximum number of needed cores is 3, so 2 cores with hyperthreading or 3 single cores would be more reasonable solution.

First of all, multiple tasks != multiple cores. We have multitasking in user-friendly OSes almost 20 years, and most of this time we have simple 1 core processor. For obvious reason 1 CPU with clock X are better than 2 with X/2. User-specific multiprocessing is sing of computer industry stagnation. And you CPU's are allready doing 20-50 task simultaneous even with 1 core.

Second, additional CPU != speed gain. Oftenly it's speed loss. How it's possible? More CPU require more work for scheduler and harder work. If additional CPU is underloaded, than they give to you a penalty. They eat scheduler resources, eat power, generate heat.

Third, if you plan to spend a lot of money, do a overclock. You'v gain a lot form overclocking from 3GHz to 4GHz, a lot more than from 4th cpu (that was usually underload). And 4GHz is easilly obtained, you could have a 5GHz.

And there is one lie about scallability: not everything could be made scallable. There is a lot of code, that's physically impossible to made divide into parts. And that code is usually most important an require a lot power. Don't be naive, there would be no miracle that made a symmetric multithreading programming easy.
Sorry Zeidlitz, that reasoning is that of when the 2 cores CPU was first launched, from that time and to day it's not valid anymore... Since the now ancient win98 where multitasking were preemptive for 32bits applications and cooperative for 16bits applications (cooperative works well when the application behaves, if it does not cooperate ... well, we have the infamous BSODs...) the concept has been enhanced and bettered.

But the multithread is yet another thing, although multitask is totally favorable to more cores, even multithread scales very well nowadays... monitoring my CPU usage turns it clear all the cores are being well used for almost every thing pushed on them.

Even games, few games from recent past can't multithread, some can but are not optimized, Oblivion as a good example of this, still and albeit being necessary to tweak the ini "by hand" to force it to use the most of the multithreading capacity the difference is HUGE in capitals... and Oblivion's engine is far from optimized for multithreading.

I agree with you only in scenery where specific application can't multitask and/or can't multithread, in this case yes, one quicker core is better... but even in that case, the OS as a whole still benefits from multi cores.
Imagination is where we are truly real
(08-11-2010, 05:35 PM)rama Wrote: Check if you can't simply change it to a Core 2 Duo on your board.

No I can't. Screw Intel and their many sockets.

First I bought a 1.5GHz P4 without knowing that it's the worst thing Intel's ever made. Then my mobo fried, and I was forced to buy yet another P4 (2.4GHz) just because the old chip can't fit in new sockets. Now, after nearly 10 years, I saved up $4000 and I'll give it to AMD, who appears to be much more user-friendly, and get myself a monster.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)