Sign in to follow this  
Picc84

Building A Computer... :/

Recommended Posts

Not this year, anyway.

But, serisouly, can it be far behind?

I can remember just a few short years ago when dual processors was considered strictly server space only... now I have one in my laptop!

My company manufactures the Sun Sparc processors, and they are using 8 cores :shock:

Though Solaris and the Blades annoy me sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

I'm new here and wondering if I could get a little advice, I myself have a core 2 duo, its an HP with a E6400, I tried the AMD 64 X2 4200+ and was not a fan, traded in for the E6400 and WOW what a difference, anyway my question is this, my friend just bought a MSI P965-NEO with a E6300 to go with it, the problem is the second core does not show up anywhere, and it runs a lot slower than mine, I also have a laptop with the OG dual core, T2400, and it is even faster than his, would the fact that he is not running a copy of XP that supports 64 be the problem or if not any clues or guesses as to what is the problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Billy Bob, check the BIOS to make sure that the second core is enabled.

Also, the OS *could* be a problem--for example if he was running Win98. If he's running XP though, that shouldn't be a problem UNLESS the second core was not enabled when the OS was installed.

To check on your processors, right-click on an empty space of your task bar and choose Task Manager. Click on the performance tab. You should see two boxes on the top row if you have 2 processors (or 1 dual core processor).

Hope this helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does thank you

The task manager and Everest and Sandra fail to pick up the 2nd core so I'm sure its a bios thing, I wasnt there when the install was done but he's a half wit like that so I'm sure its the problem,

Would he half to re-install XP after he changes the setting for it to take effect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Paint.NET will benefit immensely from a quad core chip. No joke -- I've tested on up to an 8-core system (quad dual core) and the performance scaling was awesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget that a Core 2 at 2.66ghz is equivalent to, roughly, a Pentium 4/D at 2.66*1.9 ~= 5.05 GHz (this is a simplification with one goal in mind: do not compare your "3.7" to the "2.66" and think that the 2.66 is "slower" -- trust me, it's way faster).

Plus there are four cores -- multithreaded software, such as Paint.NET, can split their work amongst more cores to get the same amount of work done faster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1000 dollars for 2.66 Ghz?

I payed about 600 for my single 3.7...which works fine, what advantage would a dual or quad have over that?

$1000 is historically the acceptable price for "the best" processor. And if your real proud like AMD was of their FX processors you can even get away with $1200 or so.

If your just messing with desktop pictures and stuff (like 800x600 and smaller) you probably won't see a huge difference going to a faster processor. But I'm editing just 6MP pictures (2816x2112) and going to a dual core made a huge difference in render speeds. I can only imagine how relieved D-SLR guys (7-10MP) would be.

Plus its nice being able to install stuff in the background and still be able to surf comfortably or not have music/movies get jerky.

Also I don't if I mentioned this earlier, but my work manufactures the Sun Sparc T1 processors (we call them Niagras at work) and they are already using 8 cores. I don't know what Sun charges for these monsters, but I think we charge SUN around $1000 each, so I can only imagine what they charge the final customer. But we a couple dozen of there blades and I think they are about $10K a pop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was wondering what PDN says about my laptop:

Application version: Paint.NET v3.0 (Beta 1 Release build 3.0.2525.34975)
Time of crash: 12/2/2006 1:10:54 PM
Application uptime: 00:00:25.4062500
OS Version: 5.1.2600.131072 Service Pack 2 Workstation x86
.NET Framework version: 2.0.50727.42 x86
Processor: 2x Genuine Intel(R) CPU            1400  @ 1.83GHz
Physical memory: 1013 MB

"Genuine Intel"... I must be running a "Sample" CPU instead of a "Production" CPU. ;)

BTW, I highly recommend the Core Duo and Core2 Duo they run real nice on my widescreen laptop. 8)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well then I guess I hope they get them in laptops soon.

Yes, they're available in laptops from Dell, et. al. And they fly.

The new Paint.NET Dev Box:

Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 2.66 GHz overclocked to 3.2 GHz (quad core)

Intel D975XBX2 motherboard

4GB DDR2-800 4-4-4-12 Corsair memory (4 x 1GB modules)

Windows Vista Ultimate x64

I'm not kidding when I say I write Paint.NET to be optimized for multicore chips :) This thing is fast and runs PdnBench in 8.3 seconds, not to mention how fast it builds Paint.NET. Definitely a worthy upgrade from the X2 4800+.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this