C Board  

Go Back   C Board > Community Boards > Tech Board

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-05-2006, 08:35 PM   #1
They Call me Mister Sako
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 169
dual processor vs single

just out of curisoty, would it be better to have 2 processors going at 1.4 ghz or 1 processor going at 2.8?
__________________
AIM: MisterSako | MSN: sakotheinsane@hotmail.com | E-mail: klinerr1@nc.rr.com
The goal of computer science is to be lazy
MisterSako is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2006, 10:30 PM   #2
60% Braindead
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 379
Two processor's can run two threads @ 1.4ghz, one processor can run one @ 2.8ghz. I dont know if the two processors will share one thread though. I'd go with the two, but thats just me :P.
__________________
Code:
Error W8057 C:\\Life.cpp: Invalid number of arguments in function run(Brain *)
Blackroot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2006, 11:21 PM   #3
Sr. Software Engineer
 
filker0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 235
It really depends on your application. Generally, on a SMP system, if 1 CPU at a given clock speed is 100%, 2 CPUs are about 170%-190%, not 200%, as you might expect. That measurement, however, is based on benchmarks which are, by all accounts, somewhat contrived. I've not done the benchmarking myself, so I can't say for sure.

The lost performance is a result of the fact that the 2 CPUs share resources, and when there is contention for those resources, one CPU has to wait for the other to finish before it can continue. There is also some software overhead, but it's fairly minor.
__________________
Insert obnoxious but pithy remark here
filker0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2006, 12:40 AM   #4
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: California
Posts: 3,020
Quote:
just out of curisoty, would it be better to have 2 processors going at 1.4 ghz or 1 processor going at 2.8?
It would be better to have 1 processor at 2.8ghz.
bithub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2006, 06:17 PM   #5
Me
 
-=SoKrA=-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 448
>It would be better to have 1 processor at 2.8ghz.

That depends on the workload. Whilst one thread is waiting for the HDD, the other can already be doing stuff. This also happens on a single CPU, but because of the large branches, there is some time that you lose whilst changing the thread. There is also the overhead from having to do interrupts from time to time, though that's hardly noticeable.

The real issue here is responsivness(sp?) though. Whilst one CPU (or core) is doing one thing, the other one can servicing your request. If you only had one CPU, you'd notice staggering. This only happens at high loads, but when it does happen, you notice it quite a bit.
__________________
SoKrA-BTS "Judge not the program I made, but the one I've yet to code"
I say what I say, I mean what I mean.
IDE: emacs + make + gcc and proud of it.
-=SoKrA=- is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2006, 04:54 AM   #6
60% Braindead
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 379
If you're a serious gamer, go with two. It just seems like games are getting to the point where they're going to use true multithreading :P.
__________________
Code:
Error W8057 C:\\Life.cpp: Invalid number of arguments in function run(Brain *)
Blackroot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2006, 07:22 AM   #7
Cat without Hat
 
CornedBee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 8,492
I'd say the opposite. Games still rarely use multithreading properly, so the single fast CPU will give you better performance.
By the time games make relevant use of multithreading, a new CPU might be in order anyway.
__________________
All the buzzt!
CornedBee

"There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
- Flon's Law
CornedBee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2006, 12:29 PM   #8
They Call me Mister Sako
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 169
im looking into this trying to buy a server. getting dual processors starts to get me on the pricey side, so im thinking i might go with a single processor.. for now atleast.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16856152019

im considering this one,

if anyone happens to know, since this motherboards specs say SATA II hard drives, does this mean it will only take SATA II but not SATA I or will it work wiht SATA I?

btw this server is going to be for hosting website, i might get dualprocessors for the ones i make for hosting game servers. that way i can run 2 game servers on each machine and assign one to each processor
__________________
AIM: MisterSako | MSN: sakotheinsane@hotmail.com | E-mail: klinerr1@nc.rr.com
The goal of computer science is to be lazy
MisterSako is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2006, 12:35 PM   #9
Me
 
-=SoKrA=-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 448
SATA II is backwards compatible. For example, I'm running this computer with a SATA I harddrive, and my motherboard can do SATA II. It's the same as with IDE/ATAPI. It can do some really fast transfer speeds, but it will also accept your old drives.
__________________
SoKrA-BTS "Judge not the program I made, but the one I've yet to code"
I say what I say, I mean what I mean.
IDE: emacs + make + gcc and proud of it.
-=SoKrA=- is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Single Entry Single Exit robwhit C Programming 5 11-11-2007 01:34 PM
buying a laptop ; intel dual core? BobMcGee123 General Discussions 27 07-30-2006 02:28 PM
Binary Search Trees Part III Prelude A Brief History of Cprogramming.com 16 10-02-2004 03:00 PM
Windows Dual Boot netboy Tech Board 33 09-15-2003 11:26 AM
fancy strcpy heat511 C++ Programming 34 05-01-2002 04:29 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.3.2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22