Bonehead question about computer processors

[Diver]

Sometimes the dumbest, simplest question turns out to be a trick question. Not this one, I promise, 'cause when it comes to processors I'm a dummy.

I'm buying a new laptop. I'm going to buy it from HP, but I'll be customizing all the options, including the processor. Here's my question:

Lets say I have two identical machines placed side-by-side, though one has a 2 GHz duo processor while the other one has a 2.5 or 3 GHz duo processor (they both have the same amount of RAM).

Would the one with a 2.5/3 GHz duo processor run considerably faster for surfing the Internet and working with Adobe programs like Dreamweaver and Photoshop or would there be virtually no difference in speed between the two machines?

 

[SmoothTalker]

For graphic programs, you might notice a small difference, nothing drastic. Not sure if Adobe would make use of it, but if anything, a good graphics card would help performance more than the CPU.

For the internet there will not be a noticeable difference.

Despite what Intel and AMD would want you to believe, for most typical computer users processors are no longer the performance bottleneck, and will not really improve your experience much.

 

[Diver]

Quad vs. duo

Wonderful answer, ST, I appreciate the way you articulated it so that just about anyone can understand it.

Now I hate to put you on the spot (you can always pretend you didn't read this) but lets say the conditions are the same in that the computer will be used primarily for surfing the web and running Adobe software.

If both computers had the same amount of RAM, say 6-8 gigs, and one computer had a duo core processor and the other one had a quad core processor, would there be much of a difference in performance?

I'm going to buy a new laptop and I'll have all these options to pick from once I start to customize it...

 

[BudBundi]

Even RAM amount isn't really the big bottleneck at the moment. What you want to be looking at is the bus speed (Which is related to RAM.)

 

[Alle_Gory]

Photoshop is a RAM hog by nature. Big images require lots of memory. More is better. If you can go for 4GB+. 2GB of ram at the minimum.

Now processor speed is hard to tell. For example:

Processor A: Q6600 at 3.0ghz. 6mb cache. 65nm
Processor B: Q9650 at 2.8ghz. 12mb cace. 45nm.

Which one is faster? Processor B. Because its a slightly faster architecture. This means can do more work per ghz than processor A so your application runs faster.

It also has more cache. 12mb vs 6mb. Cache is like temporary memory. Instead of having to compute all the work over again, it can pull some of it out from memory, and move on to the next one.

A fast machine with lots of ram is perfect for Photoshop.

Let's try it again.

Processor A: E8600 4.0ghz
Processor B: Q9450 2.5ghz

Which one is faster? Processor B again. It's a quad core. These processors are from the same architecture/family. So if you have more processing cores then you get more speed. They can do more work.

Note: They can do more work if the software is designed to use them. Most software is designed for Dual Core and not Quad. But a Quad still makes a difference. A quad can offload some of the system tasks and give the application that has 2 core design two whole cores to work with, instead of having 2 cores for the application and doing system work behind the scenes at the same time. The two cores from a quad are exclusively used by the application.

Hope this clears it up.


SmoothTalker. You must mean: Processors are more than fast enough for the user now.

To use the term bottleneck makes me laugh. Look it up.

BudBundi has it right. The bus speed is the bottleneck, but not on the processor, on the ram. Ram is too freaking slow.

 

[Cry For Love]

Photoshop is a RAM hog by nature. Big images require lots of memory. More is better. If you can go for 4GB+. 2GB of ram at the minimum.

Now processor speed is hard to tell. For example:

Processor A: Q6600 at 3.0ghz. 6mb cache. 65nm
Processor B: Q9650 at 2.8ghz. 12mb cace. 45nm.

Which one is faster? Processor B. Because its a slightly faster architecture. This means can do more work per ghz than processor A so your application runs faster.

It also has more cache. 12mb vs 6mb. Cache is like temporary memory. Instead of having to compute all the work over again, it can pull some of it out from memory, and move on to the next one.

A fast machine with lots of ram is perfect for Photoshop.

Let's try it again.

Processor A: E8600 4.0ghz
Processor B: Q9450 2.5ghz

Which one is faster? Processor B again. It's a quad core. These processors are from the same architecture/family. So if you have more processing cores then you get more speed. They can do more work.

come on man, even the typical dual core processor hardly ever uses the second core in desktop usage, not to mention third or fourth.

really, for 99% of people a slightly aged "dual core" series processor is a way better deal than the newer stuff

 

[Alle_Gory]

come on man, even the typical dual core processor hardly ever uses the second core in desktop usage, not to mention third or fourth.

really, for 99% of people a slightly aged "dual core" series processor is a way better deal than the newer stuff

If you're running ancient applications, then you're absolutely right.

Quad is good for the following: video encoding, gaming (most do make a difference), photoshop, audio encoding (depends on the application).

Question for you: Assume you have a dual-core application. You run it on a Q9650 and an E8400. Which one runs the thing faster?

 

[Cry For Love]

If you're running ancient applications, then you're absolutely right.

Quad is good for the following: video encoding, gaming (most do make a difference), photoshop, audio encoding (depends on the application).

Question for you: Assume you have a dual-core application. You run it on a Q9650 and an E8400. Which one runs the thing faster?

perhaps your right in terms ofgames, but from a bit of testing today in photoshop, it never used more than 50% of(2 core) cpu in the really cpu intense stuff like big brush liquify actions.

i would like you to point out how and which games use 2 or more cores for the intense stuff then

and i agree in terms of encoding multiple files it really helps, but the point is: 99% of guys do that stuff very rarely, in which case it probably isnt a deciding factor as opposed to the amount of cash necessary for computer purchase

regarding your question, i dont know, but what i do know is that 99% of the time my core2 cpu runs clocked to 600 mhz and does fine stuff like high detail youtube vids, office stuff fine and allows to keep fan turned off, which for my money is good sht man! And the speed is no problem, yeah

 

[Alle_Gory]

perhaps your right in terms ofgames, but from a bit of testing today in photoshop, it never used more than 50% of(2 core) cpu in the really cpu intense stuff like big brush liquify actions.

The task manager is not very easy to see what the CPU is doing with each core. The charts are blended together.

i would like you to point out how and which games use 2 or more cores for the intense stuff then

Unreal Engine 3 makes a difference, Crysis makes a difference, FSX makes a difference. FarCry 2 makes a difference... etc.

regarding your question, i dont know, but what i do know is that 99% of the time my core2 cpu runs clocked to 600 mhz and does fine stuff like high detail youtube vids, office stuff fine and allows to keep fan turned off, which for my money is good sht man! And the speed is no problem, yeah

It idles at 600mhz, when doing work it ramps up the clockspeed dynamically. Try it. Use cpu-z. And watch how the clockspeed jumps around.

 

[ChalengeGuyFan]

Would buying the quad core kill your wallet? If not, maybe you should get it.

Why?

a) 4 cores doing a job finish it faster that 2 cores of the same kind doing the same job. (Multithreaded applications don't bother with the number of cores. It's the Operating System's job to handle the cores' load)

b) Will you change your laptop in the next 4 years?
The best single core processor of 2004 is very weak compared to a good dual core processor of today and even the latter is pushed to the limits nowadays. What will be there in 2012?

If you're not the type of guy who always wants to have the latest gadgets, then get the best you can afford.
Also consider that upgrading a laptop is not as easy as upgrading a desktop.

 

[prairiedog24]

Anymore, the frequency "ghz" of a CPU means nothing.

For anyone to provide you with a real answer, we need to know the model numbers of the two CPU's you're comparing.
Flat out, in the absence of more information, the P8400, P8600, and P9600 are the best multipurpose notebook CPU's on the market.

Watch for AMD's new Phenom II based chips to hit sometime this year though... those will be very nice too.

Keep in mind that laptops are a somewhat special circumstance. For example, I wouldn't bother getting a laptop with a 35watt CPU given how good the 25w versions are. With laptops, efficiency is as important as actual speed, not just for battery life, but for overall comfort too. Nobody likes a loud noisy laptop. If gaming is important, get a HD3650 or 9600GT or better.

----
Chalenge I easily disagree. The best CPU PERIOD in 2004 is a joke compared to even the lowliest Celeron today. Our best quads will be the same way in 4 years. Future proofing via CPU is generally never a good idea. Better to save the money and replace the system sooner when you actually need the performance. The only way to "future proof" a CPU with laptops is to be aware of product cycles and buy in early. I'm running a P8400 I bought late July. It's still the best you can get for the money for most uses. Along with the P8600 and P9600.

As for the quad vs duel, it's still a relevant discussion when it comes to desktops, but with laptops, unless the user has VERY SPECIFIC use in mind, there is no reason to get a quad. The small performance boost is greatly outweighed by other factors such as heat and lack of variety of machines. For increasing performance, upgrade in this order (and for these reasons):

1) General use: Get an SSD hard drive.
2) Gaming: HD3650 or 9600GT OR BETTER. Heavy gaming def. requires better.
3) A better CPU is last on the list. I wouldn't worry about it much.

 

[SmoothTalker]

Diver, oddly enough I actually haven't been on here for a week, not just pretending not to see it. However, regarding your question.. I"m not sure personally, I don't use photoshop, but I'm sure either setup with be sufficient.

Alle Gory, I know what bottle neck means. I said processors are not performance bottle necks now because performance is limited by other factors, including disk speed, RAM speed, bus speed, etc. I never see CPU load at 100% these days and my machine isn't even that new, 2+ years old now.

If the CPU could be crunching faster but is not being utilized fully because of other system limitations, please explain how saying it is NOT the bottle neck is wrong.

 

[Alle_Gory]

1) General use: Get an SSD hard drive.
2) Gaming: HD3650 or 9600GT OR BETTER. Heavy gaming def. requires better.
3) A better CPU is last on the list. I wouldn't worry about it much.

Most SSD drives suck and are slower than hard drives. If you want a good SSD that actually makes a difference, you have to go higher end.

Intel, OCZ... etc.

 

[prairiedog24]

Most SSD drives suck and are slower than hard drives. If you want a good SSD that actually makes a difference, you have to go higher end.

Intel, OCZ... etc.

Not sure what you mean by that. If you take every SSD that's ever been released in the aggregate, then yes of course you're correct. If we're only looking at current models, and 2.5" drives specifically, then you're very incorrect.

The vast majority of the current 2.5" SSD crop on newegg will mop the floor with a 2.5inch hard drive. That includes drives from Supertalent, OCZ, Intel, Patriot, Ridata, Samsung, G.Skill, Kingston, Filemate, Transcend, and several others. There are still a few duds out there, but they are now in the minority, especially for general use.

Note: I'm not saying all of these drives are worth the price (arguably none of them are), merely that they kick the snot out of a 2.5" HDD.

 

[Crazy Asian]

Wonderful answer, ST, I appreciate the way you articulated it so that just about anyone can understand it.

Now I hate to put you on the spot (you can always pretend you didn't read this) but lets say the conditions are the same in that the computer will be used primarily for surfing the web and running Adobe software.

If both computers had the same amount of RAM, say 6-8 gigs, and one computer had a duo core processor and the other one had a quad core processor, would there be much of a difference in performance?

I'm going to buy a new laptop and I'll have all these options to pick from once I start to customize it...

also, the amount of RAM isn't that important.
of course you want a good amount, but the speed of the RAM is more important.
personally, my computer has never used more than 2.5 gigs of my ram at once.

 

[Alle_Gory]

personally, my computer has never used more than 2.5 gigs of my ram at once.

if you've got only 3gig, then 500mb is being used by the system. of course it can't use more than 2.5gig!

 

[Desdinova]

Even RAM amount isn't really the big bottleneck at the moment.

It is if you're running Vista.

1) General use: Get an SSD hard drive.

I disagree with this as well. The drives are slow and have a limited amount of writes. The only reason to go with a solid state HD is for extreme conditions such as temperature or vibration, and you should be using an OS optimized for these drives (Windows caching would kill it in a short amount of time). Other than those reasons, a solid state HD is pretty much useless... at this point in technology anyway.

 

[Cry For Love]

The task manager is not very easy to see what the CPU is doing with each core. The charts are blended together.

fair enough, however i didnt use it, still it makes sense if there is only one application actively calculating and its using 50% of cpu then 1 core is working, other is idle so it seems pretty certain

Unreal Engine 3 makes a difference, Crysis makes a difference, FSX makes a difference. FarCry 2 makes a difference... etc.

ok but my point is how? i mean articles or crap on the technical info on how the engines actually seperate their workmount, for all i know the only paralleling operations are in gpu

It idles at 600mhz, when doing work it ramps up the clockspeed dynamically. Try it. Use cpu-z. And watch how the clockspeed jumps around.

it almost never goes above the lowest frequency setting, in fact if i force it to stay at the lowerst one, there is no noticable performance loss in browsing and flash & java web applications(except hd video stream), programming IDEs, virus guard and web server, firewall, torrent also have no problem working at the same time.



on another note, its not wrong to call the cpu a bottle neck, as the amount of cache available on the cpu certainly is a very limiting factor and would greatly increase speed if its amount were possible to be increased economically

 

[prairiedog24]

It is if you're running Vista.

Not really. Ram is so dirt cheap it's pointless to even talk about it. 3GB is sufficient for all but the must demanding use. An upgrade from 2 to 4GB has shown small improvements for some games at the highest res, but currently 4 to 8 has shown no improvements at any res.

I disagree with this as well. The drives are slow and have a limited amount of writes. The only reason to go with a solid state HD is for extreme conditions such as temperature or vibration, and you should be using an OS optimized for these drives (Windows caching would kill it in a short amount of time). Other than those reasons, a solid state HD is pretty much useless... at this point in technology anyway.

This was barely (although arguably) true last year, but you're way out of date now.

Something like this is 3-4 times faster and with longer life expectancy than an HDD:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227410

A patched Vista already is SDD ready, and with one or two simple tweaks, it won't hurt an SDD at all. Windows 7 is designed around them.

I'm not saying to run out and buy an SDD, but I am saying that it would have a far greater performance impact on a laptop than bumping up the CPU.

 

[Alle_Gory]

A patched Vista already is SDD ready, and with one or two simple tweaks, it won't hurt an SDD at all. Windows 7 is designed around them.

Not yet. Maybe with Windows 7 SP1 and later.

This is why: http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3531&p=10

I'm not saying to run out and buy an SDD, but I am saying that it would have a far greater performance impact on a laptop than bumping up the CPU.

Until the SSD fills up and performance slows to a crawl. Read the anadtech article. Current SSD tech is inherently flawed.

ok but my point is how? i mean articles or crap on the technical info on how the engines actually seperate their workmount, for all i know the only paralleling operations are in gpu

There are benchmarks that show that more cores make a difference in FPS. If the raw numbers are not good enough, then its really your loss.

on another note, its not wrong to call the cpu a bottle neck, as the amount of cache available on the cpu certainly is a very limiting factor and would greatly increase speed if its amount were possible to be increased economically

Cache is expensive, and HOT, and makes little performance difference. What we need is faster cache, not more of it. Look at the performance difference between the E7xxx and the E8xxx series. Same processor core but the E8xxx has more cache. Makes less than a 10% difference with double the cache.