How fast is your processor?

[callumacrae]

Title says it all.

I have a 1.6 GHz processor, also running at that cos it gets too hot anyway.

~Callum

 

[ichwar]

3.16 GHz. No, it's not overclocked. Also, unless I've been using both cores to the max for more than 10 mins, the temperature stays at around 105 degrees fahrenheit.

 

[farscapeone]

When people asks questions like this I tend to refer to computer I'm currently using to post the replay.

The original speed is 1.8 GHz overclocked to 2.4 GHz (yes, you are right, it's E1260 )

 

[Smith6612]

I have the Intel i7-950. Clocked at 3.04Ghz at the moment, HyperThreading is enabled and all cores are being used, as well as Hyperthreaded space thanks to Folding@Home SMP client.

 

[taha116]

quac core processors 2.3 GHz each i think. Never heats up... ever... even when i play crysis. Although the game will lagg at high settings cuz of graphics card though.

 

[Smith6612]

quac core processors 2.3 GHz each i think. Never heats up... ever... even when i play crysis. Although the game will lagg at high settings cuz of graphics card though.

Crysis won't overheat the processor unless there's poor cooling on it. Crysis is only able to use one and a half cores even when doing mass physics on my box, so it's not exactly the most multithreaded game out there.

 

[taha116]

really well i also have the sims 3, assains creed, turok 4, and dozens of other huge games non of them are a problem.

 

[galaxyAbstractor]

3 GHz dual-core. Does that mean 6 GHz?

 

[ah-blabla]

Not really. And FLOPS is a better measure of computer speed anyway. And for your info, I have a1Ghz Processor, which is usually turned down to 600Mhz by the automatic power saving functions.

 

[ichwar]

3 GHz dual-core. Does that mean 6 GHz?

No, It just means that you can run twice the amount of threads with out losing any processing power.

 

[galaxyAbstractor]

No, It just means that you can run twice the amount of threads with out losing any processing power.

Ahh thanks, I've been wondering about that for quite some time now, finally got it answered xD

 

[jtwhite]

My processor: Dual-Core 2.00 GHz 2.00 GHz.

 

[Smith6612]

3 GHz dual-core. Does that mean 6 GHz?

Technically, Yes. In reality? No. Both cores are still clocked at 3Ghz, however if the app itself supports Multi threading will in fact work faster (which is why with Folding@Home, the SMP work units are massive compared to the single core CPU work units, and take a while at times to upload, as well as much shorter deadlines. More cores = more computational ability = larger amounts of work being processed). If only one core is being used, you'll still have headroom for another load on the second core, given the cache isn't being shared between two cores and each core has it's own cache. If the cache is shared, your computational real values will not go down very much as the cores will still have processing ability, just that you'll be fighting for L2 cache (which is why you go for a large cache, 4+MB for dual cores, or even 16-20MB for modern day Quads). L2 cache does make a big of a difference as well. Take a look at the Intel Celerons vs. the Intel Pentium 4s. You can have a higher clock Celeron (2.4Ghz) and the Pentium (2.0Ghz) will beat the Celeron pretty much every time thanks to the increased L2 cache of the Pentium, not to mention it can support more functions.

Now a days, I suggest Quad cores simply because they have more computational ability for future apps, and for the upper range of the quad cores such as the Core 2/i7 from Intel or AMD Phenom, come packed with two sections of L2 cache (AMD comes with L3 cache in some cases) that is huge per cluster. Heck my old Intel Q6600 (I traded it in for an i7) which has to be at least 2-3 years old now had 4MB of cache for two cores, plus a secondary cache for the two other cores on the processor totaling 8MB of total cache. The thing was a great processor thanks to it's design.

 

[Gouri]

I have 2.3GHz. Quad Core processor on idle it stays at 32-33 and on load it goes to 45.

 

[DragonMaster]

Athlon X2 2.4GHz Socket 939 stock speed.

 

[ah-blabla]

Now a days, I suggest Quad cores simply because they have more computational ability for future apps, and for the upper range of the quad cores such as the Core 2/i7 from Intel or AMD Phenom, come packed with two sections of L2 cache (AMD comes with L3 cache in some cases) that is huge per cluster. Heck my old Intel Q6600 (I traded it in for an i7) which has to be at least 2-3 years old now had 4MB of cache for two cores, plus a secondary cache for the two other cores on the processor totaling 8MB of total cache. The thing was a great processor thanks to it's design.

By the time programmers are routinely going to be able to program multi-threaded programs you'll probably have changed your computer quite a few times though. Progress on multi-threading for desktop applications (i.e. what most people run) is limited, and what exactly is all this processing power needed for anyway? Video encoding is the only routine thing, but I don't know of any people who do that often. So, multi core processors are only really useful for video encoding, gaming, scientific applications, servers and the like (also helpful for encryption cracking), but it isn't necessary for normal use. (I have a computer with a 1 core 1Ghz processor, but it still feels extremely fast.)

 

[DragonMaster]

So, multi core processors are only really useful for video encoding, gaming, scientific applications, servers and

websites with heavy Flash content, video decoding, audio encoding, Photoshop and other picture and video edit software, low-latency audio recording, leaving processing power to other tasks(only when the app doesn't take all the available threads though, dual-cores with multi-threaded apps suck when trying to multi-task)

 

[Smith6612]

Heh, I upgrade my PC quite frequently. I am for a matter of fact running Folding@Home on my computer at the moment (3x GPU clients, 1 SMP client) since I'm not gaming. My box is overclocked at the moment as well, so I do happen to do some scientific work without having to do much at all (besides tending to the clients when they get messed up for whatever reason, EUE or fail to get new unit). Otherwise, now a days a 1.8Ghz Pentium 4 is painful to deal with, not to mention a 1.8Ghz Celeron. Fine for web browsing, but are bottlenecks now a days due to their speed (heck, I've seen a lot of slow start ups on PCs due to a slow CPU, not RAM or HDD). But yeah, you can browse the web at an "ok" speed with a 333Mhz Processor. 333Mhz is just fine for office productivity unless you're running scripts or doing a lot of calculation (heck an Intel 584 128Mhz would do just great). Now a days though there is a trend of running those CPU heavy media players, of course Flash apps like YouTube HD and general web browsing which will cause CPU usage to get pretty high. I see on regular instances Multimedia users who only spend time listening to Music, on YouTube, doing some work on the PC, Instant messaging or just browsing sites like Facebook max out their 2Ghz dual core CPU for a little bit. Dual core does help even the lightest of users.

 

[richneerd]

2.66 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo - Macbook Pro

 

[noerrorsfound]

2GHz AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+