my 1st quadcore

Discussion in 'PC Hardware' started by Flasherly, Jan 11, 2015.

  1. Flasherly

    Flasherly Guest

    Intel 8200/2.33Ghz x 4 cores, found on Ebay for $25, I used to replace
    an Intel 3Ghz dualcore;- Same family of technological production
    means, btw.

    Surprised ** XP ** picked it up -- (shows as a Xeon in a dated Everest
    HW Diag.), evidently will use it, too - "the OS _can_ [XP -fl] assign
    other tasks to idle cores." First quote I noticed on Tom's HW. Seems,
    perhaps, that the name of the game, then, is efficiency - e.g., W7 is
    therefore more efficiently designed to, hm, about "handling threads"]
    with a greater preponderance of single-core coded programs still run
    on computers;- Caveats, exclusions and limitations to XP I'd think
    well might as well apply. Whatever the chainmail of an eating order
    is to XP, vrs NT/Vista/W7 when mightily gobbling up cores in a whoosh.

    Sounds somewhat a difficult, no doubt a more complicated proposal, I
    had imagined, to update this MB (and its quad) into a entertainment
    system for more intensive sound processing apps I'm running, (than
    most anything I can demand here at this station);- the ESys, as it is,
    believe is a 2.2Ghz under AMD's typical moniker for listing it - a X2
    4000 (dual core ostensibly "Intel-equal" to 4Ghz/3Ghz or some such AMD
    marketing crap).

    Dunno squat, though. Other than it's a monkey-barrel of a load of work
    to swap these two systems out, one for the other. At a residual, as I
    suspect, perhaps considerably lower in units of computing processing
    power. Negligible, IOW, at what I might propose, say, to bring all of
    Oxygen6's streaming sound-processing modules into play -- for still
    getting gaps and pauses in playback, whilst I throttle its neck and
    choke this I8200 to death. Murphy's optimism, as it were, in case I'm
    totally wrong.

    As it is, the ES/sound system is optimized, and well, for my having
    A-B'd most of Oxygen6's modules, additionally, to a couple of select
    and notably independent VST plugins. I've narrowed in to where, even
    if I had the most powerful I7, 'in the world, punk' - more, such as
    additional harmonics and other cake-icing from Oxygen6 isn't
    necessarily going to improve inherently top-notch pro-studio session
    mixes.

    That brick wall, a decade ago, technology hit when it was universally
    acclaimed that electrons will move only so fast through a pipeline
    conduit, I think, has possibly just hit me. I feel, somehow,
    splatted. Too bad I haven't anything more useful to run, really, in
    this residual void of a quad-environ, unlike all the rest, the other
    50% of home PC users that predominately game with them. Blam. Oh,
    well, I guess it can be said that I'm replete, a tad spicier now with
    a quad.

    -
    'My dad liked his food like his women.' -Lenny Bruce's daughter.
     
    Flasherly, Jan 11, 2015
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Flasherly

    Flasherly Guest

    Disregard all the above - just ran a normalization program over a ton
    of sound encodes and it hit twice the performance matrix readouts I
    was getting, reported by Process Lasso for red-tagging CPU utilization
    over all quadcores. Sweet.

    It just got more interesting.
     
    Flasherly, Jan 11, 2015
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Flasherly

    Paul Guest

    Regarding your quad core:

    1) Win98 will run on one core only.
    2) Win2K will report two cores and ignore the other two.
    The Win2K desktop license, is based on cores, and
    you only get two. It was designed for an era of
    desktop motherboards with two processor slots
    (two AthlonMP single core or two Xeon single core).
    3) WinXP Home supports one socket. WinXP Pro supports two sockets.
    The sockets can have as many cores as you can find.
    This means either version of WinXP will report all four cores
    of your processor, since only one CPU socket is involved.
    WinXP marks a change from core licensing to socket licensing.

    WinXP schedules task just as well as any later OS.
    Many promises were made in the later OSes, but it's
    hard to see their effects. For example, your quad core 8200
    is actually two dual core processors sharing an FSB.

    http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Core_...J0534MN - AT80580PJ0534MN (BX80580Q8200).html

    "(2) 2MB 8-way set associative caches
    (each L2 cache is shared between 2 cores)

    Later OSes may be NUMA aware, or aware of core
    organization. If a process is running on Core1,
    it can migrate to Core2, then back to Core1, at
    zero cost. That's because those cores share an L2,
    and no cache flushing is caused by moving to another
    core. If Core1 and Core2 happened to be fully utilized,
    an OS later than WinXP will still move the process
    to Core3 or Core4, but be aware there is a cost
    associated with doing so. WinXP is more or less
    oblivious to the cost (a little bit of cache coherency
    traffic after the move). But this fine tuning is more
    or less noise in the bigger picture. WinXP is still
    "sufficient" as an OS. You can even run that $4000 processor
    with 18 cores if you want, because the license is by socket
    and not by cores.

    Windows 8/8.1 is a little less generous, because it
    "reserves" some cycles. This can be seen as a frame rate
    reduction, running the same game on a WinXP/Win8 dual
    boot computer. One where the game was barely smooth
    on WinXP, will stutter a bit on Win8. The trick to beating
    the reservation system (for programs with infinite scaleup),
    is to fork more threads. For example, 7ZIP on Win8 will run
    slightly faster if you fork twice as many threads as there
    are virtual or physical cores. If you have a quad core, and
    play a game that was smooth as butter on a single core,
    then you will not notice the reservation issue.

    Paul
     
    Paul, Jan 11, 2015
    #3
  4. Flasherly

    Flasherly Guest

    That's some excellent coverage to all bases, and no reason why there
    shouldn't be at least modest (very) gain improvements on sound
    processing for playback. Taltube/FerricTDS - "smooth dynamic shaping
    capabilities of some high-end reel-to-reel tape recorders, this
    plug-in simulates three of the most distinctive and much appreciated
    sonic effects generated by these devices: DYNAMICS, SATURATION,
    LIMITING performance" - (two VSR DLLs off Oxygen6's sound
    leveling/low bandpass filtering), for StereoTool's 9band
    compressor/limiter, AGC. StereoTool, as it is, 'coded, per se,
    multi-core aware,' can't be maxed without artifacts, even if it is
    already close enough (via a slider for allowing it utilize more CPU
    resources) to maxed, to be then nominally discernable.

    So, that's about as hard as I can hit it, the 8200, in any continued
    sense for efficiency. Haven't enough "tinsel," utilities I'm as yet
    aware of, to make it glitter any brighter than it is (I've a fair
    amount, probably half or more, of sound material at LossLess quality).
    Top-notch hardware, of course - preamps/processors, mixed amps and
    such over a 15-driver (quad-speaker/monitor) array.

    That's also a set-environ computer, not much else going on with it
    other than sound. Perhaps, at least for the time being, better off
    here (dual-XP/W7 boot machine), where it's better setup to try various
    apps for a testbed platform.

    Really -- came out well past expectations I had for XP/SP2, which I
    just didn't see overall as conducive to multi-core processing above
    duals. A false presumption I had held where W7 had all those eggs in
    its basket.
     
    Flasherly, Jan 12, 2015
    #4
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.