Re: A Good, Inexpensive Single-Core cpu
- From: Puddin' Man <puddingDOTman@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:49:39 -0500
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:41:07 -0400, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Puddin' Man wrote:
I'm not in touch with the industry, I just build a little desktop
system every few years.
Does Intel (or AMD for that matter) make A Good, Inexpensive Single-
Core cpu that doesn't heat the entire county (like Prescott)?? :-)
Any/all info much appreciated.
There are still single-core processors available from the two major
processor companies, such as the AMD Sempron, or the Intel Celeron. Both
of those single-core versions are relegated to very low-end laptop
functions.
And not really suitable for a gen'l purpose (non-cheapo) desktop?
There's also single-core specialty processors such as AMD Geode, Intel
Atom, or VIA C7. They are basically meant for the embedded market.
Also not suitable?
But trust me when I say, a dual-core is really the smallest thing you
should be looking for. Even if individual programs aren't designed for
multi-core, there is rarely ever just a single program ever running on
modern operating systems, even on simple "Internet surfing and word
processing" machines. As soon as an OS is capable of multitasking, then
it can make use of multiple threads. There's always background processes
running, and a multitasking OS is aided greatly by having multiple cores
to send tasks off to.
In the context of the common nickel/dime usage we've been discussing,
this is simply not true.
I originally considered the issue in detail back when "dualies" hit
the market and begat a tiny culture.
Yes, there are numerous background processes running, and a
multitasking OS can conceivably allocate differing threads to
different cores. But the threads have to be demanding material cpu
cycles for this to have a non-trivial effect. In common usage,
they don't.
I now have Email client, Usenet client, editor, multiple instances
of IE6 and some utility windows open. I am an average user. As I
type in the editor, I run Task Mngr and find (no surprise) that I am
using under 10% of cpu cycles available from my old Celeron 3ghz.
Most of the "under 10%" is consumed by Spybot S/D Teatime. For this
stuff, a 2nd (3rd, 4th, ... 15th, 16th etc) core would be about
as useful as the tits on a boar hog.
What you say is true for someone running multiple cycle-intensive
apps. Another guy running multiple i/o intensive apps would be
better off with a good single-core and spending extra $ on
hi-performance i/o subsystem.
The only reason I'd spring for dual-core for the nickel/dime usage
would be because Intel/AMD have virtually abandoned the market for
good, inexpensive single-core cpu's (for desktop). I will assume
they have done so until I have evidence to the contrary.
They have been corrupted by the hi-tech glitz that their marketing
dept's have chosen to hustle (to the exclusion of certain common
computing needs). No?
P
" ... and the bees made honey in the lion's head."
- from "If I Had My Way", Blind Willie Johnson
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: A Good, Inexpensive Single-Core cpu
- From: General Schvantzkopf
- Re: A Good, Inexpensive Single-Core cpu
- References:
- A Good, Inexpensive Single-Core cpu
- From: Puddin' Man
- Re: A Good, Inexpensive Single-Core cpu
- From: Yousuf Khan
- A Good, Inexpensive Single-Core cpu
- Prev by Date: Re: A Good, Inexpensive Single-Core cpu
- Next by Date: Re: A Good, Inexpensive Single-Core cpu
- Previous by thread: Re: A Good, Inexpensive Single-Core cpu
- Next by thread: Re: A Good, Inexpensive Single-Core cpu
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|