Dual core, Quad core??

[moleque]

At the moment I have a Dual Core 2.7 mhz PC. After my daughters PC went bang I had a look on the net for a new one.

What slightly puzzled me was the description of a Quad Core PC. It stated that it had a speed of 2.2 mhz.

Now, the question is, is my Dual core 2.7 faster than the Quad core 2.2? And if so, why bother with a Quad?

The amount of cores within each processing unit isn't utilized much by Windows. If you were doing compiling or a lot of rendering with SMP support, you may need such.

AMD first released the 64bit extension. You may need to read up on cpuflags.

8086 processors. I have an AMD 64 bit processor in this box I am using right now. No problem whatsoever.
There is an Intel processor in the laptop and another in the other computer.
Again, no problem.

AMD single core and I can run multiple instances of VMs on it, layered to three levels.

Intel single core and I can do 3d rendering even though the system lags at times.

True speed has to do with the internal clock rate. Try looking at a SPARC or a PPC for a realistic view.

386? 486? DX? SX? Someone forgot about the f00f bug.


Speed also has to do with: services, graphics, applications, OS design, kernel design, kernel size, file system design, hardware tuning, etc.

I can make a 386DX with 128M RAM run fast without any problem and set it up for home use.
I can also make a workable system with X, browser, and basic services run with 48M ram and no problem.

Having multiple open applications is wasting RAM and ruining hard drive performance. Minimalize your use and the programs will be more efficient.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Perhaps ... but you're still sad enough to (apparently) like AMD's

Kyu

[leo-rcc]

I do like AMD's too, Apart from my laptop my last 3 PC's were AMD's.

[Kyuuketsuki]

I do like AMD's too, Apart from my laptop my last 3 PC's were AMD's.

Every AMD I've ever had has caused me huge problems and I will no longer buy them ... Intel processors, though more pricey, are far more powerful. As far as I'm concerned you get what you pay for ... I wouldn't buy a Dell server for work (they're a fucking nightmare) and I wouldn't by an AMD based PC.

Ironically my favourite graphics chip is ATI (I don't get on with nVidia) and who owns ATI? You guessed it.

Kyu

[moleque]

Processor architecture has very little to do with the manufacturer.
However, here a few reasons for it being called amd64:
1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64 Naming conventions.
2) http://www.freebsd.org/platforms/amd64.html
3) http://www.debian.org/ports/amd64/
4) http://www.netbsd.org/ports/amd64/

I run two pure amd64 operating systems on this box. No 32bit libraries.

History: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit#64-b...r_timeline


Anyone with an understanding of computers wouldn't be so trivial
about such a matter.

What operating system(s) do you have currently installed and which have you used before?

Myself, I have FreeBSD amd64 and Debian(GNU/Linux) amd64 "lenny" on this box. No 32bit libraries.

NetBSD i386 on the laptop.

Debian (GNU/Linux) i386 "lenny" and Fedora Core 6 i386 on the other box.
I've used Minix, plan9, beos, l4/Linux, MIT exokernel, Atari TOS, Commodore64's OS, OpenBSD, NetBSD, FreeBSD, DragonflyBSD, Timex Sinclair's OS, Wang computer's native OS, Windows DOS based releases, Windows NT based releases, and GNU/Hurd.


DELL only assembles the components.

HP, IBM, Acorn, Motorola, Lucent, Freescale, etc make both processors and computers.

Have you tried another OS on the box?

[Kyuuketsuki]

That's your problem mate ... all the standard benchmarks say Intel CPU's are far better and no one can persuade me that Linux is in some way inherently superior to Windows.

And you can shove you cynicism about "an understanding of computers" where the sun don't shine mate ... I've been in the business since DOS 2.11 was king on Intel and have been a PC freak since the Horizon Northstar (CPM). I'm 52 with 30 plus years of computer experience behind me (22 of those working in computing), so let's just say I've been around the block a bit and on experience alone my opinion is worth something.

Kyu

[moleque]

The problems with benchmarks is that they are limited.
UNIX systems have been around for 37 years.

Windows MSDOS is based upon TOPS-10.

[Kyuuketsuki]

The problems with benchmarks is that they are limited.
UNIX systems have been around for 37 years.

The problem with people (especially evangelists) is they are biased!

Windows MSDOS is based upon TOPS-10.

Er ... so what? DOS is ancient history!

Kyu

[moleque]

Benchmarks themselves are also biased. You can't really get the same results from each operating system.

I'll stick to computers and OS design here.


Anyway, why not remove all DOS and DOS derived executables from your system and see how it works?
If it is ancient, then you can do without it.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Benchmarks themselves are also biased. You can't really get the same results from each operating system.

I'll stick to computers and OS design here.

And as I said people (especially evangelists) are biased so I'll stick to those who do the benchmarks as a more objective assessment if it's all the same to you.

Anyway, why not remove all DOS and DOS derived executables from your system and see how it works? If it is ancient, then you can do without it.

I'm using Windows 7 64bit so please can it until you know what you're talking about eh?

Kyu