do core duo's allow 2x the speed, or 2x the number of jobs?

[tunanugget]

So w/ a core duo processor, do u finish a task twice as fast or are u able to do two task at the same time? I ask cuz i recently used lame to convert mp3's and seems like cpu was only 50-55% the entire time. Would I have been able to specify two directories for cpu to be 100%?

[fla]

If the task you're running isn't multithreaded, you won't see any improvement unless you run two of them. Even if the task you're running is multithreaded but is already maxxing out the FSB on a single core, again you won't see any improvement. If your task is multi-threaded and is cpu bound, then you could theoretically go twice as fast as long as you don't max out something else first.

[nitrogen_widget]

Another thing to remember with core 2 duo's is that you will probably never be able to max out both cores.

so you will almost never have a PC lockup if one task tanks.
At least, that was how I understood it.
So if i'm wrong someone can let me know.

[wannabepvr]

you will probably never be able to max out both cores.

This is what I have found nice about the few multicore PCs I have played with. Even if one head is maxed out you can keep working at the machine, without really noticing any of the usual lack of response.

I expect as time go on the operating system and software will start to load up all processors.

[nitrogen_widget]

I'm hoping as time goes on the quad-core cpu's can be fully utilized by the software.

As it is, the software is just starting to catch up with dual cores.

[David]

I'm hoping as time goes on the quad-core cpu's can be fully utilized by the software.

As it is, the software is just starting to catch up with dual cores.

Once you start seeing software that can deal with multiple cores, it won't matter how many cores you have, as they will distribute evenly, unless the specific software artificially restricts the number of cores due to "licensing".

I keep wondering about XP, since I think it has a two processor limit, so it may not install on the quad cores coming up. Not sure if Microsoft plans to patch it, but I would expect them to use that to move people to Vista where they probably have better code to determine the physical number of chips vs cores. Anyone have a better understand of the impact quad cores will have on the use of XP and/or Vista?

[SickBoy]

This was always the issue with the original "Dual Core" machines - aka SMP...

I remember people crapping their pants about Dual Athlon setups when they started coming out. I got one, and just about every time I told someone I had a "dual processor machine" I had to answer "No, it doesn't mean applications run twice as fast..."

IMHO software for average, Joe Sixpack (to steal a stroligo-ism) is a LONG way off from being multithreaded AND effective at utilizing dual processors or cores. The demand for that kind of raw horsepower to run consumer apps just isn't there. But then again, Vista just came out, so that may be changing soon.

[gkreis]

I have been running dual processors since the late 90s. I started with the vertical P3 packaging (500 Mhz?) Then I went to the AMD MP SMP design that I later upgraded to the Mobile XP processors to make it live another year or so while I waited on the Intel CoreDuo.

Once you use a dual processor machine, it is really hard to go back. The machine is smoother in its responsiveness and if you do things that are CPU intense (compress videos, etc.) it lets you keep working. Frankly, though, it is not really extremely helpful for performance unless the software is written to use it, as others have said. Hmm... if they get better at using two at once, will my silky smoothness go away... Hmm......

I am sure glad they finally got both cores on one chip. Makes my CoreDuo MUCH quieter than my previous SMP boxes and a lot easier to build....

[nitrogen_widget]

My only reason for looking at a dual core CPU is so I can encode video faster.

[bits]

My only reason for looking at a dual core CPU is so I can encode video faster.

I think you need to go back to the CPU performance tables at Tom's Hardware. It clearly shows that no single core cpu is faster than the Intel Core 2 Duo 6800.

I wrestled your dilema for quite a while until I started using a Dual processor system at work. I start a cpu intensive task and quess what I do not have to wait for it complete or schedule it for later when I am not there...I can still do other tasks including two cpu intensive tasks and that is a whole lot faster than doing two cpu intensive tasks in series.

Also, many video software apps will run more than one instance at a time. comskip will for example...also Dr DivX is setup to make use of both CPU's.

A sinlge core will not be that much faster than one core of a dual core but you will have the extra core to do more with.