Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

Single core cpu


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 15-05-2013, 14:50
DeelyBopper
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,292

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.
DeelyBopper is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 15-05-2013, 15:01
flagpole
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 43,524
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.
flagpole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2013, 15:06
Maxatoria
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,140
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
Maxatoria is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2013, 15:12
Mr Dos
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 473
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.
Mr Dos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2013, 15:52
DeelyBopper
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,292
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.

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).
DeelyBopper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2013, 16:03
Smiley433
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Location: Location
Posts: 3,641
Yes, my one and only PC is a P4 3GHz running XP. Although I do have hyperthreading switched on - woohoo!
Smiley433 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2013, 16:28
DeelyBopper
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,292
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?
DeelyBopper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2013, 16:32
unique
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 5,857
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
unique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2013, 16:32
alan1302
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: West Yorks
Posts: 5,789
What OS are you using with that?
Probably Windows XP if I was using my psychic powers
alan1302 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2013, 16:38
DeelyBopper
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,292
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.
DeelyBopper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2013, 16:46
zx50
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Next to Consett.
Posts: 66,708
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.
zx50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2013, 16:52
alan1302
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: West Yorks
Posts: 5,789
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!

I'm still awaiting the iPad - I look out for the post each day but still nothing
alan1302 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2013, 18:12
IvanIV
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 21,234
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.
IvanIV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2013, 19:07
Smiley433
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Location: Location
Posts: 3,641
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.

Probably Windows XP if I was using my psychic powers
Wow, that's spooky!
Smiley433 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2013, 19:16
whoever,hey
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 29,949
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.
whoever,hey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2013, 19:25
IvanIV
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 21,234
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.
IvanIV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2013, 19:29
whoever,hey
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 29,949
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.
whoever,hey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2013, 19:40
IvanIV
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 21,234
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.
IvanIV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2013, 19:48
whoever,hey
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 29,949
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.
whoever,hey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2013, 20:31
DeelyBopper
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,292
Can't I just drink out of a straw?
DeelyBopper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2013, 22:44
Gort
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,188
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.
Gort is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-05-2013, 08:57
noise747
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Herefordshire
Posts: 17,720
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.
noise747 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-05-2013, 09:09
Smiley433
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Location: Location
Posts: 3,641
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.
Smiley433 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-05-2013, 10:59
neo_wales
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: South Wales/Gran Canaria
Posts: 7,446
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.
neo_wales is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-05-2013, 12:10
Esot-eric
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 943
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).
Esot-eric is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 17:08.