Software's System Requirements

[Ranger REG]

I must confessed I haven't bought any new software since Races of Faerun was still in-print, but when dual-core PC's have been popping up, many of the software's system requirement (minimum and/or recommended) don't often state the dual-core processor.

Should they be listed along with single-core processor requirement? Are they listed now? What is a rough equivalent between single-core and dual-core? Is it safe to assume that a 1.6 GHz dual-core is twice as fast and powerful than a 1.6 GHz single-core, making it the equivalent of a 3.2 GHz single-core?

 

[Aus_Snow]

Not many applications really make use of such gear, i.e., by virtue of being multithreaded. So no, you couldn't always expect it to be "twice as fast", per se.

However, when you have multiple things running, dual-core apparently kicks in - and this is often the case on a typical PC, I'd wager. Likewise, when applications are, or at least certainly appear to be multithreaded, there's a noticeable difference.

Er, at least, that's what I think I can see happening, courtesy of Tom's Hardware there.

Hopefully someone knowledgeable will happen by soon. . .

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Unless the software is multithreaded there is minimal performance improvement unless the core design is a lot better. For example, in Doom 3 my old Athlon64 @2.25Ghz and my Dual Core Opteron at the same speed get simlar benchmark results since the game itself isn't really multithreaded apparently. However in Half Life 2 the multithreading improvments to the source engine have improved frame rate noticeably.

So no a dual core 1.6 isn't as fast as a single core 3.2 in apps that are not coded to use the second core.

 

[drothgery]

I must confessed I haven't bought any new software since Races of Faerun was still in-print, but when dual-core PC's have been popping up, many of the software's system requirement (minimum and/or recommended) don't often state the dual-core processor.

Should they be listed along with single-core processor requirement? Are they listed now? What is a rough equivalent between single-core and dual-core? Is it safe to assume that a 1.6 GHz dual-core is twice as fast and powerful than a 1.6 GHz single-core, making it the equivalent of a 3.2 GHz single-core?

And to make things even more confusing, there are four different CPU architectures that are commonly used in desktop and notebook PCs right now, three in both single and dual-core versions and one only in dual-core versions. If you had a 3.6 GHz Pentium D 960 and a 1.8 GHz Core 2 Duo E4300, the Core 2 Duo will be faster in just about any benchmark... and the AMD CPU with the same price (and about the same performance at stock speeds) as the E4300 is a 2.4 GHz Athlon 64 X2 4600+.

 

[Redrobes]

This core business is really quite simple. Each core runs one thread of execution at any moment in time. Any program must have at least one thread as their main thread but you may also code up programs to have more than one thread so do tasks alongside the main thread.

So with a dual core and one single threaded program running, it will run at exactly the same speed and the second core will be idle.

With two single threaded programs running you have two threads in total and one will be assigned to each core so each will run at full speed. If you had just one core then it would chop between them constantly and give each program half of its time and so each would run at half speed. Therefore dual core is twice as fast.

You can also have one multi threaded program running and each of the threads would be assigned to a different core so the single program would run twice as fast.

Your PC runs many many background tasks alongside the main applications that you run. With a dual core these applications can run on the extra core so even with one single threaded program it might run just a little faster on a dual core machine.

You cannot simple aggregate the core speeds together. The two combined might be the total capable power but you might not be able to harness all of it with one application if that program was written with one thread.

There is a little more complexity with the hyper threaded processors. These look like dual cores to the software system but they are not actually full cores. You get one full one but bits of it that are not in use by the main thread may optionally and occasionally be used to push more waiting threads forward a bit until it needs the resources of the main core units whereby it stalls again. So you get a little extra oomph but not a lot.

Finally, just for information, ViewingDale is written with multiple threads and the web site has a free graphics test program which will tell you whether it thinks the system is multi core or hyper threaded or not. Its not all that useful unless you want to check your system for compatibility.

http://www.viewing.ltd.uk/cgi-bin/viewingdale.pl?category=test_app

 

[Cergorach]

Should they be listed along with single-core processor requirement?

If a dual or quad core processor is required, it will be stated with the specs. But as far as i know there isn't an application that 'requires a dual core proc to run, there are some apps that benefit from a dual core proc (as already mentioned).

Any software in particular your looking at?

 

[Ranger REG]

If a dual or quad core processor is required, it will be stated with the specs. But as far as i know there isn't an application that 'requires a dual core proc to run, there are some apps that benefit from a dual core proc (as already mentioned).

Any software in particular your looking at?

At the moment, no. But I think it was last year that I was looking at some new games and their labels didn't list dual-core requirement, just the single-core as always.

 

[drothgery]

At the moment, no. But I think it was last year that I was looking at some new games and their labels didn't list dual-core requirement, just the single-core as always.

Dual-core CPUs have only been widely available in high-end desktops for around two years, and in midrange systems for around one. Not many companies will make a PC game that requires a PC that's less than two years old (now, requiring a video card that's less than two years old... that's another story entirely).

 

[ThirdWizard]

Dual-core CPUs have only been widely available in high-end desktops for around two years, and in midrange systems for around one. Not many companies will make a PC game that requires a PC that's less than two years old (now, requiring a video card that's less than two years old... that's another story entirely).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he's asking about games requiring dual cores. I believe he's asking for two processor requirement specifications: one benchmarked for single core and one benchmarked for dual core. So, you would have requirements something like "Recommended 3.4 GHz single core/1.4 GHz dual core" or something along those lines.

At the moment, I think the slowest dual core is fairly equal to the fastest single core, so it makes no difference. In the future, single cores will pretty much stop growing. You won't ever see a straight up 4.0 GHz processor (or it is very unlikely). So, as they get faster, dual/quad core will become the default. I'm not sure how long that will take, though.

 

[drothgery]

At the moment, I think the slowest dual core is fairly equal to the fastest single core, so it makes no difference.

Well, that's almost true for Intel CPUs, if you ignore discontinued products (3.4 GHz and faster Pentium 4s, mostly) and budget or ultra-low-voltage products (1.5 GHz and slower Core Duos and Core 2 Duos, mostly). But it's certainly not for AMD; the 2.6 GHz single-core Athlon 64 4000+ will beat the 1.9 GHz dual-core Athlon 64 X2 3600+ in almost anything that doesn't take much advantage of a second core (which includes most games).

In the future, single cores will pretty much stop growing..

At least, they will for mainstream desktops, notebooks, and servers.

You won't ever see a straight up 4.0 GHz processor (or it is very unlikely).

Now, this is wrong. The only reason we didn't see a generally available 4GHz CPU last year was because Intel didn't want to explain why its old 4 GHz processor wasn't as fast as its new 2 GHz processor. If I were to bet, the first widely available 4 GHz CPU will be in the 3rd-generation Xbox or the PS4; IBM seems to be heading down the high clock speed/do less work per clock cycle path with their high-end server CPUs, and both the PS3's Cell and the Xbox 360's Xenon are derived from IBM's server CPUs. But it's a near certainty that Intel and AMD will eventually release 4 GHz desktop CPUs.

So, as they get faster, dual/quad core will become the default. I'm not sure how long that will take, though.

A majority of PCs sold last year were dual core. Current roadmaps from Intel and AMD suggest single-core will be confined to the extreme low end (Celeron/Sempron) and ultra low voltage products in the future. Because of some fundamental programming issues which limit the usefullness of adding extra CPUs in many cases, it's likely that quad-core is probably the endgame of adding more cores for desktops and notebooks (though not for servers).