to dual core or not to dual core...
kgunders at teamcool.net
Mon Aug 15 22:28:22 GMT 2005
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 15:07:12 -0700
Freddie Cash <fcash at ocis.net> wrote:
> On August 15, 2005 02:54 pm, you wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 14:36:14 -0700
> > Freddie Cash <fcash at ocis.net> wrote:
> > > On August 15, 2005 02:08 pm, Ken Gunderson wrote:
> > > > ah, that is the question...
> Depends on your workload. :)
> If you tend to run only 1 or 2 large programs at a time, with nothing
> running in the background, and if those apps are single-threaded, then
> you may be better off with a faster single-code CPU. Especially if you
> are into gaming, as the vast majority of those are still primarily
> single-threaded, and the Athlon64 FX is still the premier gaming CPU.
> However, if you tend to have a thousand different apps loaded, and they
> are all chugging away in the background doing various things, and you
> like to multitask (write docs, compile code, listen to music, rip CDs,
> etc), then a dual-core system will be a better fit.
> One thing to watch for with the dual-core Athlon64 X2s is the amount of
> cache. The only difference between some of the models is the amount of
> L2; the actual processor speed is the same.
So I've noticed;-)
The only benches I've seen are for Winblows and seem to be about 20-30
% increase for high multitasking. I DO tend to have a lot of apps open
and doing several things at once but, as you point out, it also depends
on how those apps are coded. For example, I don't notice my old dual
PIII 450 taking advantage of the 2nd cpu much under X...
Anyhow, thanks for your input. Was hoping that maybe someone w/a dual
core rig could perhaps share some real world fbsd experience...
Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
A: Why is putting a reply at the top of the message frowned upon?
More information about the freebsd-amd64