Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[gamegreen33]

As in, could it handle both processors? Also, how is the frequency on processors measured? If it says 3.4 ghz, is that per core/thread, or is it 3.4 ghz cumulative?

[Captain Mayday]

I can at least answer that DF is not multi-threaded.

[bombcar]

It's 3.4 GHz per core. DF would completely consume one core, but no more. The other core(s) can be used for music, web browsers, the OS, etc.

If you have a newer Intel chip, they can "overclock" a single core to get a bit more speed.

[gamegreen33]

It's 3.4 GHz per core.

I am not condescending, I just haven't been able to get a clear answer anywhere else...Are you absolutely positive this is true?

[Cruxador]

It's 3.4 GHz per core.

I am not condescending, I just haven't been able to get a clear answer anywhere else...Are you absolutely positive this is true?

Indeed, this surprises me as well. I don't know otherwise, though, and I can verify that the rest of that post is accurate.

[Capntastic]

Yes, it's per core.

[bombcar]

It's 3.4 GHz per core.

I am not condescending, I just haven't been able to get a clear answer anywhere else...Are you absolutely positive this is true?

Indeed, this surprises me as well. I don't know otherwise, though, and I can verify that the rest of that post is accurate.

It's a bit confusing, because a GHz is not like a megabyte - it's a measure of speed not processing power. But each core is clocked at 3.4 GHz, so you have a "total" of 13.6 GHz of "speed." In other words, DF will run just as fast on a single 3.4 GHz machine as it will on a quad 3.4 GHz; because it uses just one core.

But the quad can do other things at the same time.

Another "proof" - if the 3.4 GHz were for all 4 cores, then it would be less than a GHz per core; that would be embarrassing.

[gamegreen33]

It's 3.4 GHz per core.

I am not condescending, I just haven't been able to get a clear answer anywhere else...Are you absolutely positive this is true?

Indeed, this surprises me as well. I don't know otherwise, though, and I can verify that the rest of that post is accurate.

It's a bit confusing, because a GHz is not like a megabyte - it's a measure of speed not processing power. But each core is clocked at 3.4 GHz, so you have a "total" of 13.6 GHz of "speed." In other words, DF will run just as fast on a single 3.4 GHz machine as it will on a quad 3.4 GHz; because it uses just one core.

But the quad can do other things at the same time.

Another "proof" - if the 3.4 GHz were for all 4 cores, then it would be less than a GHz per core; that would be embarrassing.

Thanks-I was having an argument with my dad on this point. I went to a Wikipedia article that showed a university with a many-core processor that clocked at 1.6 ghz (think it was like 36 cores) and he still didn't believe me. How much better would DF perform on a 3.4 ghz compared to a 2.6 ghz? In terms of frame rate.

[immibis]

It's 3.4 GHz per core.

I am not condescending, I just haven't been able to get a clear answer anywhere else...Are you absolutely positive this is true?

Indeed, this surprises me as well. I don't know otherwise, though, and I can verify that the rest of that post is accurate.

It's a bit confusing, because a GHz is not like a megabyte - it's a measure of speed not processing power. But each core is clocked at 3.4 GHz, so you have a "total" of 13.6 GHz of "speed." In other words, DF will run just as fast on a single 3.4 GHz machine as it will on a quad 3.4 GHz; because it uses just one core.

But the quad can do other things at the same time.

Another "proof" - if the 3.4 GHz were for all 4 cores, then it would be less than a GHz per core; that would be embarrassing.

Thanks-I was having an argument with my dad on this point. I went to a Wikipedia article that showed a university with a many-core processor that clocked at 1.6 ghz (think it was like 36 cores) and he still didn't believe me. How much better would DF perform on a 3.4 ghz compared to a 2.6 ghz? In terms of frame rate.

I'd guess about 3.4 2.6ths as well.

[bombcar]

I'd guess about 3.4 2.6ths as well.

This is roughly correct, however, it assumes that the processors are of the exact same family. Newer processors not only are faster, but can do more "work" per unit time;  so they may be even faster than the clock-speed alone would indicate.

A perfect example of this is the first Core Solo processors; they were clocked slower than the Pentium 4 Netburst, but ran faster (did more work per time).

[gamegreen33]

Basically what I have right now is an AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5000+, and it clocks in at 2.6 GHz. I'm planning on building a second PC to run alongside it that would perform better (that is what she said) with an AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition, which clocks in at 3.4 GHz. I'm...leery about overclocking. I really don't want to fry my processor that cost upwards of $100. I may do it with the one I have right now if I do indeed build a second PC.


EDIT: Also, I can post the specs planned for the new PC if anyone cares.

[immibis]

This is roughly correct, however, it assumes that the processors are of the exact same family. Newer processors not only are faster, but can do more "work" per unit time;  so they may be even faster than the clock-speed alone would indicate.

A perfect example of this is the first Core Solo processors; they were clocked slower than the Pentium 4 Netburst, but ran faster (did more work per time).

Why do I keep getting quoted improperly?

[bombcar]

Why do I keep getting quoted improperly?

Because people try to trim out the interior quotes and miss.

[Mraedis]

Keep in mind that an AMD 3Ghz processor is slower than an Intel 3Ghz processor, and that a very old 3Ghz processor is slower than the latest 3Ghz processor. 

[Baughn]

The newest 40d# code is multi-threaded, actually.

Oh, it's only the rendering that uses a second thread, but that still means you get ~10% usage from a second core, in addition to the first one.