Go Back   TechArena Community > Hardware > Overclocking & Computer Modification
Become a Member!
Forgot your username/password?
Tags Active Topics RSS Search Mark Forums Read

Sponsored Links



Multitasking, physical core vs virtual cores

Overclocking & Computer Modification


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #1  
Old 16-09-2010
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,328
Multitasking, physical core vs virtual cores
  

I was searching for benchmark and I found one very interesting benchmark that Pits virtual cores vs Physical cores in multitasking. In this last benchmark, we are going to do things a small another way. We are going to gauge Crysis benchmark performance throughout the making of a RAR file and this must explain us the game performance as we can wait for out of these processors for multi-tasking application. These outcomes are exciting in that we can notice that the Core i3 processors get a much harder performance punch during multitasking usage models evaluate to true quad-core options. Certainly, even the resources Athlon II X3 445?s performance is near to that of the Core i3 when running simultaneous application. This is probable because Hyper-Threading is not as effectual as an added physical CPU core when multiple threads are carry out. It is an attractive experiment, and in this matter, the Phenom II X4 940/945 shows a definite benefit over all of the other sub-$150 CPUs. OF course the outcomes are the same as we were excepting, but I m still intresetd to try some difficult numbers with it

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 16-09-2010
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 973
Re: Multitasking, physical core vs virtual cores

Hey come on friend!!!!!!! No one who play games would like to play games runs on another uniformly challenging application background. These are some of the cause censure hardware of degraded excellence in review. At smallest amount do multi-tasking with 2 applications which do not include gaming.
__________________
Searching the forums can help you to find your answers more quickly
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 16-09-2010
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,342
Re: Multitasking, physical core vs virtual cores

Truly speak; some of guys do this, but never the kind of application they have tasted. What will be better and interesting will be to ensure out working a game while running screen restricting software that is recording the game. That is real world multitasking situation connecting gaming and another somewhat worrying task (though not of necessity on the CPU, but it does get cycles, plus it engage lots of I/O).
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 16-09-2010
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 994
Re: Multitasking, physical core vs virtual cores

I believe the comparison among virtual and physical cores is totally immaterial. That is, virtual cores are additional to a physical dual core or quad core. They do not need a lot of additional logic and do not use a lot of more power. So the actual value of virtual cores is that they provide you more processing power and multitasking capabilities at very low additional cost, both in CPU cost and power use. So you should evaluate example dual core with HT against a dual core with no HT of the similar cost (possibly somewhat superior clocked). That is when you can gauge the true worth of the technology, and then it balance out well. It get better performance/watt and price/performance ratios.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 16-09-2010
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,728
Re: Multitasking, physical core vs virtual cores

As you made one comment here like” So you should compare eg a dual core with HT against a dual core without HT of the same price (probably slightly higher clocked). That's when you can measure the true value of the technology”. I would like to say that you can see from internet that Pentium G69050 gets bigger hit as compare to Intel i3 version mainly in average frame rate. And I am also with you that it is foolish to compare real core vs. virtual core while using different different structural design.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 16-09-2010
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 662
Re: Multitasking, physical core vs virtual cores

Occasionally I play a video or h264 720/1080p vid on a 2nd screen while gaming and sometimes even time stretched. Yes there are lawful ones even...review 3 for example. What is absent is how quick that RAR is being compressed.When AMD was the quicker (I can hardly consider), you paid the AMD premium, boohoo. Performance has its cost, period. Any profitable company will be unintelligent not to insist a premium when they have the higher hand.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 16-09-2010
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 651
Re: Multitasking, physical core vs virtual cores

Yea this will have been an improved situation. But it’s been recognized since the days of Pentium 4 with hyper-threading that physical cores have superior performance over virtual cores when using extra than one application. Yeah, that is why in greatly multi threaded scenarios, a Thuban with 6 real cores which offers 50% extra performance than a alike Phenom II X4, can match the i7 860 which has taken 4C with 8T, which offers 50% extra performance than a alike i7 750 which does not have Hyper Threading at all.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  TechArena Community > Hardware > Overclocking & Computer Modification
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads for: "Multitasking, physical core vs virtual cores"
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
better between intel core i5 2500k and intel core i7 2600k for multitasking and multithreading Gunwanti Motherboard Processor & RAM 5 03-08-2011 12:02 AM
8 Physical Cores vs. hyper threading at 4 Cores jAYASENA Motherboard Processor & RAM 5 05-07-2011 10:18 AM
SME physical server and PC on Virtual Machine NathanDS Networking & Security 4 29-10-2010 02:14 PM
Bridging the virtual server and my physical PC muaazster Networking & Security 4 25-07-2009 05:01 PM
How to use multiple cores on virtual pc ? MARVELA Networking & Security 2 01-06-2009 06:38 PM


All times are GMT +5.5. The time now is 03:49 PM.