Go Back   Cyber Tech Help Support Forums > Hardware > Hardware

Notices

Hardware Use this board for problem solving and the discussion of Computer Hardware issues

Reply
 
Topic Tools
  #1  
Old March 14th, 2008, 08:09 PM
manooly manooly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 79
Can Someone Please Explain My Quad Core Processor? (moved from Vista forum)

I just recently purchased a new HP desktop with Windows Vista, 3 GB of RAM and an AMD quad-core 9500 Phenom processor. It says that it runs at 2.2Ghz. What ecactly does that mean considering I have a quad-core? What does the 9500 represent? When I'm looking at games specs on the boxes the requirements usually say something like minimally you need a 2.8Ghz or something. My machine is brand new and has one of the best processors available, and it is only 2.2Ghz. Is this right or do you multiply it by 4 because it is a quad-core? I guess I really don't understand exactly what the "quad-core" actually means. What exactly are the advantages and disadvantages of having a quard-core processor? Can someone shed some light on this for me?

Thanks for your time!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old March 15th, 2008, 08:11 AM
oracle128's Avatar
oracle128 oracle128 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
O/S: Windows XP Pro
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 40
Posts: 9,401
Quote:
What does the 9500 represent?
9500 is a model number, nothing more. I believe AMD's model numbers are supposed to represent the speed approximately comparable to a single core Athlon CPU at that speed. But it simply doesn't work out that way, a quad core Athlon is not equal to a 9500MHz Athlon.

Quote:
It says that it runs at 2.2Ghz. What ecactly does that mean considering I have a quad-core?
2.2GHz is the clock of the CPU. Each core runs at that speed.

Quote:
When I'm looking at games specs on the boxes the requirements usually say something like minimally you need a 2.8Ghz or something. My machine is brand new and has one of the best processors available, and it is only 2.2Ghz. Is this right or do you multiply it by 4 because it is a quad-core?
System requirements on game boxes are difficult to decipher these days. They don't account for multi-core CPUs, or SLI/Crossfire graphics cards. But, system requirements are really a stab in the dark anyway, even before these technologies came to consumers. It's not like a game that needs a 2.2GHz processor will just stop working on a 2.1GHz processor. They're recommendations. That said, when it comes to system requirements, multiplying a dual-core processor by 1.5, and a quad core by 2-2.5 will do about the best job approximating your ability to run the software adequately (which is of course based on the developer's approximations).

Also keep in mind that the performance of a computer does not depend solely on the CPU. Graphics card, memory (amount and speed), even hard drive speeds among others affect overall performance. Lacking in one area can sometimes be made up for in other components. Though, lacking in some certain areas can nullify any benefits attempted by other components.

Quote:
I guess I really don't understand exactly what the "quad-core" actually means. What exactly are the advantages and disadvantages of having a quard-core processor? Can someone shed some light on this for me?
CPU cores often follow a car analogy. Having a single core CPU is like having 1 car, a quad core CPU is like having 4 cars. If you have a car cruising at a speed of 100Kmh, you can only transport 4 passengers at a time. But if you have 4 cars travelling at 100Kmh - is that the same thing as having 1 car going 400Kmh? Of course not. Sure, you can transport the same amount of passengers in the same time - assuming you run at full efficiency. But you have to use 4 times as much fuel. You're 4 times more likely that one of the cars is going to break down. And what if the road is only 1 or 2 lanes wide? You can see now how 4 cars will never be exactly 4 times better than 1 really fast car. And it is the same with CPUs. Your 4 cores still have to share the same resources (like the cars have to share the road).

Now you question what is the real benefit of a quad core CPU. Well, versus a single core CPU of the same speed, it can potentially do 4 times as much work in the same time (but will never do so in practice). If you've been taking in what I was saying above, you're probably wondering why don't they just make a single core CPU that runs 4 times faster, surely that would be better. The answer is, it would be better, but we simply can't, with current technology, run CPUs that fast. They require too much power, they generate too much heat that can't be dissipated efficiently enough, and they place too much of a stress on the materials of the CPU. A car going at 400Kmh is great, but you're going to destroy the engine or blow it up if you have it always running at that speed. This is why focus has recently shifted onto not making CPUs faster, but make them able to take on more workload simultaneously - with more cores. If/when we come up with technologies to replace silicone, maybe GHz will be king again. But for now, we've pushed clock speed as far as possible, so we have to rely on more cores to increase performance.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old March 18th, 2008, 02:24 PM
manooly manooly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 79
Wow! Thanks so much for your explanations. Now my question is, that if I am a gamer, should I have focused more on buying just a dual-core machine with a higher Ghz instead of the lower 2.2 Ghz quad-core machine? Please tell me that I'm wrong in my assumptions and that I made a fine choice to purchase the AMD quad-core processor.

- manooly
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old March 18th, 2008, 10:38 PM
oracle128's Avatar
oracle128 oracle128 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
O/S: Windows XP Pro
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 40
Posts: 9,401
It depends on the type of games, and sometimes, the exact game, as to what benefit you get from a quad core. I would say, at this time, there aren't many games that take advantage of quad cores. Supreme Commander would be an excellent candidate.
Most other RTSs will do fine with a dual core.
FPSs will usually be better off with a more powerful single core CPU and a decent graphics card. Even a dual core would do ok. But, there aren't many dual cores that run faster than the current quad cores anyway. I would say, a dual core vs quad core for an FPS, there will be little difference in performance. The quad core would definitely still perform better than an equivalent or slightly better dual core, but certainly not enough to justify the price difference. If you bought a quad solely for FPS gaming, you wasted your money. The exception here would be Crysis, or anything based on CryENGINE 2, which would make use of any spare resource you throw at it.

Various other genres will have varying amounts of benefits with quad cores, but generally, the quad won't do much better than a dual. Of course, this only indicates performance with just the game. Performance also depends on other factors, like if you have a lot of programs running in the background. The more programs you run, the more a quad core will be of benefit.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Topic Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Topics
Topic Topic Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Intel Core i7 870 Processor - 2.93GHz, LGA 1156, 8MB L3 Cache, Quad-Core, Lynnfield? pops1890 Windows XP 0 January 11th, 2010 02:11 AM
Dual Core, Triple Core or Quad Core? Combeter Man Hardware 5 July 14th, 2009 04:08 AM
Quad core temp's (Moved from Vista Forum) mudassar Hardware 5 October 11th, 2008 07:07 PM
Processor Help (Moved from Vista Forum) demongod Hardware 4 July 17th, 2008 03:15 AM
Quad-Core AMD VS. Intel Core 2 Quad nsl The Anything Else Board 7 October 1st, 2007 02:19 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:03 PM.