What does Quad Core Mean? Is That 4 Processors?
-
Quad Core means four CPU cores on a single die. I believe that AMD's quad-core CPUs are truly four independent cores, where Intel's are actually two dual-cores. AMD claims their's is better. This all happened last year, and I haven't really been paying attention to this stuff since just before the hardware actually hit the street.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
I believe that AMD's quad-core CPUs are truly four independent cores, where Intel's are actually two dual-cores. AMD claims their's is better.
In theory it is, in practice you need a 4 threaded app with heavy cross thread communications to realize the benefit. At the same time, Conroe is performing enough better than Phenom that it doesn't matter. They were roughly equal on a per clock basis but Phenom took a 10% hit due to a hardware bug (revision with the fix eta a few months) and Conroe will run at significantly higher clockspeeds.
Otherwise [Microsoft is] toast in the long term no matter how much money they've got. They would be already if the Linux community didn't have it's head so firmly up it's own command line buffer that it looks like taking 15 years to find the desktop. -- Matthew Faithfull
-
It's four processors on one chip. Hopefully, I get my hands on one soon :-D
"I guess it's what separates the professionals from the drag and drop, girly wirly, namby pamby, wishy washy, can't code for crap types." - Pete O'Hanlon
Would there be a benefit as far as Visual Studio is concerned? That's the only thing I really do on the box anymore. I used to play games, but I got bored with 'em...
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
Would there be a benefit as far as Visual Studio is concerned? That's the only thing I really do on the box anymore. I used to play games, but I got bored with 'em...
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
I used to play games, but I got bored with 'em...
:laugh:
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Would there be a benefit as far as Visual Studio is concerned?
That I wonder, if VS would break up different threads, such as during compiling, and delegating them to the different cores to speed up builds. I'm guessing a faster harddrive, such as a 10K rpm might help, too. Until I get cash for a better machine, I can only wonder.
"I guess it's what separates the professionals from the drag and drop, girly wirly, namby pamby, wishy washy, can't code for crap types." - Pete O'Hanlon
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
I used to play games, but I got bored with 'em...
:laugh:
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Would there be a benefit as far as Visual Studio is concerned?
That I wonder, if VS would break up different threads, such as during compiling, and delegating them to the different cores to speed up builds. I'm guessing a faster harddrive, such as a 10K rpm might help, too. Until I get cash for a better machine, I can only wonder.
"I guess it's what separates the professionals from the drag and drop, girly wirly, namby pamby, wishy washy, can't code for crap types." - Pete O'Hanlon
As far as I know MSBuild is already parralised (I think that's spelt correctly) so as long as the dependencies allow it then it should be able to utilitise all the cores it can on the processor. [Maybe I've got this wrong and it's for the next version of MSBuild but I'm pretty sure it's already the case]
-
As far as I know MSBuild is already parralised (I think that's spelt correctly) so as long as the dependencies allow it then it should be able to utilitise all the cores it can on the processor. [Maybe I've got this wrong and it's for the next version of MSBuild but I'm pretty sure it's already the case]
Hi Ed,
Ed.Poore wrote:
parralised (I think that's spelt correctly)
may I suggest parallelized as in this article[^], a single r for sure. BTW I was surprised by spelt, very British according to my dictionary; actually it said Americans would use spelled; however it does not know a thing about parallelization... :)
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]
This month's tips: - before you ask a question here, search CodeProject, then Google; - the quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get; - use PRE tags to preserve formatting when showing multi-line code snippets.
-
Hi Ed,
Ed.Poore wrote:
parralised (I think that's spelt correctly)
may I suggest parallelized as in this article[^], a single r for sure. BTW I was surprised by spelt, very British according to my dictionary; actually it said Americans would use spelled; however it does not know a thing about parallelization... :)
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]
This month's tips: - before you ask a question here, search CodeProject, then Google; - the quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get; - use PRE tags to preserve formatting when showing multi-line code snippets.
-
I see, that is after I told Google's satellite to zoom out a bit ;)
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]
This month's tips: - before you ask a question here, search CodeProject, then Google; - the quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get; - use PRE tags to preserve formatting when showing multi-line code snippets.
-
As far as I know MSBuild is already parralised (I think that's spelt correctly) so as long as the dependencies allow it then it should be able to utilitise all the cores it can on the processor. [Maybe I've got this wrong and it's for the next version of MSBuild but I'm pretty sure it's already the case]
Ed.Poore wrote:
MSBuild is already parralised
The default value in Visual C++ 2005 is "2".
[Tools] | [Options]:
[Projects and Solutions] -> [Build and Run]:
maximum number of parallel project builds.
Maxwell Chen
-
Ed.Poore wrote:
MSBuild is already parralised
The default value in Visual C++ 2005 is "2".
[Tools] | [Options]:
[Projects and Solutions] -> [Build and Run]:
maximum number of parallel project builds.
Maxwell Chen
-
Ed.Poore wrote:
Presumably that applies to C# as well?
I guess so. Mine is Visual Studio 2005. The [tools] | [options] are global settings.
Maxwell Chen