PDA

View Full Version : A Computer Question



redbaron998
08-11-2007, 01:00
(yes my computer ignorance is showing)

Ok so I am a bit confused...when you have a Intel Core 2 Duo 1.5 (as I do) that means you have 2 1.5 processors.

When you are running sometihng (like Wahammer Online) is it using one or both of my 1.5s

I am a bit worried cause I bought this laptop 2 months ago and if it doesnt run Warhammer Online on at least near Max I am gonna be upset (as not including the amazing Best Buy no matter what its covered warranty) I spent 1600$ on this thing. It was able to run MTW 2 on max with over 8000 men on the field (whitch is pretty resource demanding)

The Target system requirments are :

Target Spec.:
Processor: 2.0GHz (AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ / Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 / Pentium 4)
Video: NVidia 6800 AGP 8X
RAM: 1GB

I have above the video card needed (Nividia 8600 GT) and 2 GB (whitch I would like to upgrade to probably 8GB (2 4GBs) right before launch) but my processor is worrying me (That is the price you pay for going laptop.)

Also I heard Laptops (at least HP Pavilions) are impossible to upgrade other than RAM (whitch I know they can do RAM)...If I can I want to up my processor latter but I may not get to, does anyone know about this?

Also what is the difference in Processor and RAM (I know what a processor is) but what do they do...and how important is one over the other (at least partaining to running a MMO)

Thanks for any help, I tried looking it up but its easier if someone can explain it to me.

Sgt John Keel
08-11-2007, 01:37
First off, the Intel Core 2 Duo have two processor cores. It's almost the same as having two processors (except that you only have one physical socket), and the performance differences are too trivial to care about here.

Second, if a game can use both processor cores depends a lot on the threading of the game. This is something that needs to be done manually, and many old games doesn't gain any performance from multiple cores except minimal gains from offloading OS overhead. However, a lot of new games take advantage of two or more processor cores, so it is reasonable to expect Warhammer Online to do so, too.

Regarding the recommended specs, your processor is a little bit on the weak side, but it should almost match the performance of the 3800+. I think there will be no worries, especially as it seems to include 2.0GHz Pentium 4s, where your processor is about 50% faster, and even more in multithreaded applications.

The processor should be upgradeable, if it's not soldered to the motherboard, but it might be hard to get to it, and you will void warranties if you exchange it yourself. You can also upgrade the HDD, which the same usually applies to, and the graphics card, which the same also applies to with the added fun that the heat sink will be underdimensioned for any faster card and they are horribly expensive and hard to get hold of. You can also change the screen with a bit of know how.

Concerning the RAM, if you have a PM945 chipset, you will only be able to use 3.2 GB ram, and it is likely that you do with a 1.5GHz processor. If you paid $1600 for it, you ought to have something faster though. You're not checking when it has adjusted clock speed with SpeedStep? Also concerning the RAM, you are aware of that you need SO-DIMMS (small outline-DIMMS) I hope?

Anyway, regarding performance impact of RAM and processor, we can categorically state that once you have 'enough' RAM, you won't gain anything by adding more, but a faster processor can always improve performance, unless it's a game at high resolutions where the GPU will limit performance. So, you will likely not gain any performance in a single game by adding beyond 2GB of RAM, but you will gain performance in memory intensive applications (ie, photoshop, maya, lightwave 3d etc) or when multitasking (for example, running photoshop, illustrator, firefox, iTunes, a mail program, the antivirus, a calendar program, an IM client and so on). This is because when the OS runs out of RAM to allocate, it will begin to page applications to the secondary memory, that is the hard disk drive, which is several orders of magnitude slower than the primary memory, ie RAM, so when you want to use that program, it must swap out another from the RAM to the disk, and this will decrease the feel of 'teh snappy'.

A faster processor on the other hand will help you accomplish tasks faster, such as using layer effects in photoshop, encoding mp3s in iTunes, encoding your DVDs to MPEG-4 files to store on disk, or indeed making a game run smoother.

/Adrian

ScouserInExile
08-11-2007, 09:44
Long story short: your processor will eat the game for breakfast. It'll run fine.

Snoozer
08-11-2007, 15:38
I just ordered a laptop with the same processor yesterday, although I only paid less than 700€ for it, which I thought was quite cheap, as it also had 2Gb ram and all kinds of fun things, only the graphics card was quite bad, but I didn't care about that as I'm going to install Ubuntu on it so not a lot of gaming will be done :p

:D

superknijn
08-11-2007, 16:18
My PC has a Duo-Core 1.86 PC, and it handles everything fine. There is a major difference between having two processors, and having two processor cores.

One thing that you should note is that having more processor cores isn't really better. A duo-core isn't twice as good as a normal processor (although the recent ones do come very close), while a current quad-core with the same clock speed is even slightly worse than a duo-core. Ofcourse, they will approve, and I'm sure that current duocores can't possible compare to next years' quadcores.

lord_fenric
08-11-2007, 23:51
My PC has a Duo-Core 1.86 PC, and it handles everything fine. There is a major difference between having two processors, and having two processor cores.

Physically, there is a large difference, you have a single die with two cores on it instead of two physical chips, though from the perspective of a user space application there is no difference. Is some regards multiple cores could out perform multiple processors since there is no need to share data over a "relatively" slow bus since the two cores are more tightly integrated.



One thing that you should note is that having more processor cores isn't really better. A duo-core isn't twice as good as a normal processor (although the recent ones do come very close), while a current quad-core with the same clock speed is even slightly worse than a duo-core. Of course, they will approve, and I'm sure that current duocores can't possible compare to next years' quadcores.

No, but it is at least as good as a single core processor of the same spec and has the advantage of actually being able to do two things at once, unlike a single core processor which can't. Meaning anything which can be separated into distinct tasks will be greatly improved (assuming the entire task isn't io bound). So, for example, compiling is greatly enhanced by using multiple cores / processors since multiple files can be compiled at the same time.

Also, using multiple application at the same time is more responsive since both can actually get processor time at the same time.

superknijn
09-11-2007, 11:40
The problem is that multi-core processors are mostly set to a lower clocking speed to avoid overheating, and that it is very expensive to design programs with multiple 'threads'; in other words, programs that can effectively utilise all cores on a processor. As such, you won't really notice much of a real performace increase.

At the moment, it is still better to have a Duo-core than a Quad-core.

lord_fenric
09-11-2007, 12:22
The problem is that multi-core processors are mostly set to a lower clocking speed to avoid overheating, and that it is very expensive to design programs with multiple 'threads'; in other words, programs that can effectively utilise all cores on a processor. As such, you won't really notice much of a real performace increase.

The only thing which makes multi-threaded programming difficult is that that each thread of the process shares the same address space with no protection other then that which you add. Which whilst it *does* make it complicated, its not that much of an issue if you take the time to get it right. Most high end applications are written to be multi-threaded.

The way you talk it seems as if you're implying that no one is writing them, but people have been for years. Any time it would be quicker to do something in parallel then it should be.

Another canonical example of where multiple cores / cpus is better is 3d modeling. Assigning more threads to render individual frames or part of a frame means it going to speed up the process.



At the moment, it is still better to have a Duo-core than a Quad-core.

That's a sweeping statement, surely it depends exactly on what it is you're doing and whether that would take advantage of the additional processing space you have.

Sgt John Keel
09-11-2007, 12:59
The problem is that multi-core processors are mostly set to a lower clocking speed to avoid overheating, and that it is very expensive to design programs with multiple 'threads'; in other words, programs that can effectively utilise all cores on a processor. As such, you won't really notice much of a real performace increase.

At the moment, it is still better to have a Duo-core than a Quad-core.

It is not, since quad cores are available with the same frequencies and bus speeds as dual core processors, although there is a large price difference.

The quad core 3.0GHz 45nm Yorkfield processor (available soon) actually draw less power than a 2.4GHz 65nm dual core.

/Adrian