Single core cpu

[Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,583
Forum Member
✭✭✭
Anyone still using one?

I remember when my mp3s would stutter if I loaded up other programs while they were playing and not being able to do anything while a virus scan was running.

I've noticed the place I normally get a lot of my parts from have (almost) stopped stocking them.

They have one available, a Sempron 145 for 26 notes. You can get a dual core for around 30 notes so I'm not sure who would buy that Sempron. Still I guess that's a Happy Meal or 3 double cheeseburgers.
«1

Comments

  • flagpoleflagpole Posts: 44,641
    Forum Member
    i was using a single core before i bought this. what 3 years ago.

    it just moves the bottle neck.

    if i could have a single core 4 times as fast as the cores in my quad i definitely would.
  • MaxatoriaMaxatoria Posts: 17,980
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    seems like the single core is a dual core with one disabled...probably ones that fail the production process on one of the cores

    IBM do the same thing with their power systems, they use ones with failed cores for low level systems to save money
  • Mr DosMr Dos Posts: 3,637
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I found an old single core Celeron + mobo in my junkbox the other day and hooked it up for a laugh. Even on XP it was pathetic - pages loaded slow and YouTube stuttered with the cpu at 100%. Its not just the core count and clock speed, today's processors have better design.

    In comparison, you can get a modern entry level Intel cpu/mobo/ram bundle for under £100 that has DVI and will happily play iPlayer HD at 1080p. I've built several for friends etc.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,583
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Maxatoria wrote: »
    seems like the single core is a dual core with one disabled...probably ones that fail the production process on one of the cores

    IBM do the same thing with their power systems, they use ones with failed cores for low level systems to save money

    All cpus are binned accordingly afaik.
    Mr Dos wrote: »
    I found an old single core Celeron + mobo in my junkbox the other day and hooked it up for a laugh. Even on XP it was pathetic - pages loaded slow and YouTube stuttered with the cpu at 100%. Its not just the core count and clock speed, today's processors have better design.

    In comparison, you can get a modern entry level Intel cpu/mobo/ram bundle for under £100 that has DVI and will happily play iPlayer HD at 1080p. I've built several for friends etc.

    I'm amazed at how much power you can get these days. I started buying systems when you'd go to PC World and buy a 'package' with a printer etc and you'd spend £1500. By the time I purchased my second PC I paid £1100 without a printer.

    I think I am about to build my cheapest ever build. Except RAM prices are a little high compared to a few months ago and I need some ram to flesh out the build.

    I picked up a G550 with a GIGABYTE GA-H61M-S2PV for £27. Hopefully, going to put the G550 back on eBay and use a G840 (which I got from PC World for £30).
  • Smiley433Smiley433 Posts: 7,854
    Forum Member
    Yes, my one and only PC is a P4 3GHz running XP. Although I do have hyperthreading switched on - woohoo!
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,583
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Smiley433 wrote: »
    Yes, my one and only PC is a P4 3GHz running XP. Although I do have hyperthreading switched on - woohoo!

    What OS are you using with that?
  • uniqueunique Posts: 12,367
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Smiley433 wrote: »
    Yes, my one and only PC is a P4 3GHz running XP. Although I do have hyperthreading switched on - woohoo!
    i had a couple of those, 2.8ghz though. they were actually decent processors
  • alan1302alan1302 Posts: 6,336
    Forum Member
    What OS are you using with that?

    Probably Windows XP if I was using my psychic powers
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,583
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    alan1302 wrote: »
    Probably Windows XP if I was using my psychic powers

    Too early to be drinking Alan. Stay on the pop, it's better for your liver.

    I haven't forgot that you poached my free iPad.:)
  • zx50zx50 Posts: 91,227
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    My one-year-old laptop has a dual core Celeron. I think today's Internet is too information intensive for the old single core processors.
  • alan1302alan1302 Posts: 6,336
    Forum Member
    Too early to be drinking Alan. Stay on the pop, it's better for your liver.

    I haven't forgot that you poached my free iPad.:)

    It is pop! Pop with JD but still pop! :D

    I'm still awaiting the iPad - I look out for the post each day but still nothing :cry:
  • IvanIVIvanIV Posts: 30,301
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Two cores are minimum nowadays. We expect good response times, fluid UI. It's not possible with one core. If a single processor is busy with UI it can't do something else or the other way around and lagging happens. There's enough parallelism in a modern OS on OS and process level to make use of multiple cores. But it does not make sense to overdo it with a number of cores, because they need to synchronise and a disk is a bottleneck anyway. I'd say four cores is about right.
  • Smiley433Smiley433 Posts: 7,854
    Forum Member
    unique wrote: »
    i had a couple of those, 2.8ghz though. they were actually decent processors

    Yes, just recently given my heatsink a hoover and reapplied the thermal paste ready for the summer if summer finally decides to arrive. Been running that CPU for ten years now.
    alan1302 wrote: »
    Probably Windows XP if I was using my psychic powers

    Wow, that's spooky!
  • whoever,heywhoever,hey Posts: 30,992
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I remember when my mp3s would stutter if I loaded up other programs while they were playing and not being able to do anything while a virus scan was running.

    I wonder why it did that. Because you dont need multiple cores for multitasking which is all that is required for 2 things happening at once.
  • IvanIVIvanIV Posts: 30,301
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I wonder why it did that. Because you dont need multiple cores for multitasking which is all that is required for 2 things happening at once.

    Processes/ threads get executed by time slices, a number of cores says how many slices can be executed really in parallel. If you have just one core if one thing is executed others must wait till it's their turn. If something is time critical you notice the delay if there is a lot of processes to run.
  • whoever,heywhoever,hey Posts: 30,992
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    IvanIV wrote: »
    Processes/ threads get executed by time slices, a number of cores says how many slices can be executed really in parallel. If you have just one core if one thing is executed others must wait till it's their turn. If something is time critical you notice the delay if there is a lot of processes to run.

    Yeah, i understand how it works. For stuttering its either badly written software or their cpu was just too slow. Most likely that latter.
  • IvanIVIvanIV Posts: 30,301
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Yeah, i understand how it works. For stuttering its either badly written software or their cpu was just too slow. Most likely that latter.

    Slow disk might have been a problem, too. If several processes are in a code that require an exclusive access to disk then all must wait till this one is finished. Even more cores won't help if this code is sequential.
  • whoever,heywhoever,hey Posts: 30,992
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    IvanIV wrote: »
    Slow disk might have been a problem, too. If several processes are in a code that require an exclusive access to disk then all must wait till this one is finished. Even more cores won't help if this code is sequential.

    Yep, it just shows a bottleneck.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,583
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Can't I just drink out of a straw?
  • GortGort Posts: 7,460
    Forum Member
    Smiley433 wrote: »
    Yes, my one and only PC is a P4 3GHz running XP. Although I do have hyperthreading switched on - woohoo!

    My main machine has the 2.6GHz version of your chip; Hyperthreading is also enabled. I'm using Debian Wheezy (a Linux distro) as my OS with little in the sense of bells and whistles running that might waste processor cycles. Runs fine for my usage (not a gamer, which helps).

    One day I'll get a new machine, but I'm not pressed right now.
  • noise747noise747 Posts: 30,692
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I got a AMD thunderbird 1Ghz machine running windows 98, but only used for my security cameras.

    My mate have a P4 running cooledit and he uses it to produce his music, also a 233 Intel machine that have a Yamaha midi daughterboard installed on a turtlebeach sound card, ISa, which is why it needs a old computer. that is running a midi sequencer, which I can't remember the name of on windows 98.
  • Smiley433Smiley433 Posts: 7,854
    Forum Member
    Gort wrote: »
    My main machine has the 2.6GHz version of your chip; Hyperthreading is also enabled. I'm using Debian Wheezy (a Linux distro) as my OS with little in the sense of bells and whistles running that might waste processor cycles. Runs fine for my usage (not a gamer, which helps).

    One day I'll get a new machine, but I'm not pressed right now.

    Not sure how much of a difference hyperthreading makes in the real world, I guess it may have just been a sales gimmick when they launched the processor.

    Same here, I'll get a new machine one day but as this does me fine for my needs then I'll stick with it for the time being. Plus I'm a bit put off by Windows 8 at the moment.
  • neo_walesneo_wales Posts: 13,625
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I've got a single core Intel in a base unit plugged into a TV in one of the spare bedrooms, works fine for a bit of browsing, TVcatchup or watching a film from my home network. Not that many years ago that what is now considered junk was 'state of the art'. Not long into the future and my i7's will be relegated to a media player I suppose as we move on to faster machines.
  • Esot-ericEsot-eric Posts: 1,293
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Up until a couple of months ago my youngest sister was using a single-core Sempron 140. Worked perfectly fine for general browsing, school work, and light gaming (mostly Sims 3 and various online flash games).

    When my other sister upgraded her machine i swapped the X2 processor from the old one with the Sempron from the youngest sister's. That Sempron machine is now running as a dedicated XBMC box using OpenELEC and has no problem playing even 720p stuff (no 1080p to test with, but i don't think it'd be capable).
  • Helmut10Helmut10 Posts: 2,431
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I'm using a 1.4 GHz P4 single core on an ASUS motherboard right now, it's around 11 years old.

    It will run all video apart from HD, that is too much for it, SD OK on iplayer for example, however I rarely use it for video. Stuff on Youtube no problem unless HD of course. MP3 no problem. Any Web Browser no problem. Office software no problem.

    It makes you very careful about installing running and configuring some software, so it teaches you good software maintenance and not to run trivial junk in the background.

    Sure when I get a new one it will have a 4 core processor, better designed cpu and all the rest, so it should be.

    Even with that, if you are cavalier and run useless tripe in the background, no software maintenance you can have a problem. Look at the posts on here and elsewhere, 'oo I have a 16 core processor running at 20 GHz but my PC is so sloooow, keeps crashing, please help...'.
Sign In or Register to comment.