CPU: Any advantage in getting Dual core? | Page 2

Why is that relevant?

For the user, the point is getting low noise and good performance. If TDP-ratings are "fair" or not is of little interest.



As long as people are getting Core2 based HTPCs running passively or close to passively cooled, I think your point is moot.

What is relevant for HTPC users is this:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

lol all this debate on tdp and not one answer to the guys question,,,,
building an htpc myself and using a mATX case was using a celeron 3ghz but was tempted into trying a coreduo 4300,, no performance increase in mp despite the chip costing 3x as much and made the system ustable due to increase in board speed pushing up power requirements beyond capabilities of 250watt psu uuuummmm
regards mdb
ps in this case cpu temp was only 2-3 degrees lower than celeron as well,,,v disapointed

 

As has been said and documented, there are no practical limits to how much power could be argued for, if your needs are full HD-DVD/BR h264 playback with post-processing, audio decoding etc.

What is perhaps missing is good statistics on what kind of hardware is needed for a given set of responsivity/task tables.

For instance, playing back CDs may not demand all that, but if you have a 200.000 song mp3 collection, you may feel that a fairly powerful PC is sluggish when searching and browsing playlists.

For tv-viewing and DVD-playback I think that you can get by with very modest hardware. On the oter hand, some people think that DVD-playback needs a lot of FFDShow processing, leaving us to the "no PC is fast enough" situation.

-k

 

If the only thing you're running is MP, then you wont see a performance improvement. Also remember that MP isnt like a computer game - you wont get more FPS or faster response with more power.

What dual core allows for is more processing power for things like FFDshow filters (upscaling, sharpening, etc...), database transactions (EPG, music sorting), and multitasking (recording TV while playing a game). When one core is maxed at 100% usage, the other core can take care of rendering the interface, and keeping things smooth, even with heavy processing going on in the background.

If you only give the box one task to do at a time, then you can get away with a very low spec system: 1.5ghz or even less. it all depends on what you are going to use the system for, which is why general statements of "whats better" really are useless.

 

So there are no apps that utilise 2 cpus?

 

Yes there are. If you read this thread and all external links posted in it you will find that most apps utilise 2 cpus, but the speed advantage usually lie somewhere between 0% and 100%, not usually exactly 100% as one would initially assume.

You will also find that heavy media processing is a better candidate for dual/quad core than most other tasks.

-k

 

I have a single core AMD 4000+, 1GB DDR, and a 128MB radeon 9700 pro AGP that plays the Nvidia pure HD demo just fine at 1920x1080i. Before that it had a AMD 3200+. It would play the same video video just fine for most of the time but would skip at the mountains. After the processor upgrade it plays every HD video that I can throw at it prefectly, Xvid, divx, and H2.64 AVC. An that is with a antique graphics card. I have the replacement card right here on my desk, a radeon 1300 Pro.

I think a better question would be can you get by with a single core? The answer is, "yes you can" provide that is powerful enough and the rest of the hardware can keep up with it.

 

There is a multithreaded version of the xvid codec around, which uses all 4 cores on my Q6600 as does rmvb encoding.