Just to add a little more onto this thread. As Alan correctly suggests the kernel is clever enough to be able to run multiple applications simultaneously on each of the seperate processor cores.
But the problem lies in that very few applications currently have been set up to utilise multi threading - that is to say an application can spread it's load over multiple cores within the same machine. If I've got this right, and I'm willing to be corrected, there aren't that many libraries that are true multi threading - GCC is to have such a module incorporated in the very near future and I believe that Python also has such a library. And that I think is that for the main players. So, for the video and audio apps that Rob may be using, on a multi core processor each app would / could be run on it's own core, but unless there were some really intense apps in use, I doubt if the quad would be stretched. E -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Rob Beard Sent: 17 December 2007 17:59 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; British Ubuntu Talk Subject: Re: [ubuntu-uk] Quad core CPU for Ubuntu, is it worth it? Philip Newborough wrote: > On Dec 17, 2007 9:27 AM, Alan Pope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 09:13:28AM +0000, Kirrus wrote: >>> The technical stuff behind multi-core processors mean that more processors >> are only really useful if you're going to be running a number of >> cpu-intensive tasks on your computer simultaneously (as each one will use >> just one CPU core, leaving the others free to be used elsewhere). >> >> Not just intensive tasks, anything where you are doing multiple things at >> the same time, which can happen with something as simple as viewing a java >> applet in a web browser. >> >>> >From what you've said, you'd probably find a dual-core sufficient, which would save you some money. >>> >>> Personally, I tend to prefer AMD processors to intel, if just 'cos intel >> is a big evil corporation, who's cpu's tend to get matched with ATI graphics >> chips (when they're done on-board), and ATI graphics chips are aweful for >> linux drivers. :( >> >> Not sure you can say Intel is evil. They are an awful lot better (with >> respect to open sourcing code/drivers) than a number of other vendors such >> as NVidia and ATI. >> >> Of the Intel machines I have, two have NVidia GPUs and five have Intel GPUs. >> None have ATI. >> >> Cheers, >> Al. > > > I agree, calling Intel evil is a little harsh. Personally I always try > to go with Intel, if possible, as they are so well supported. I have a > couple of Intel only machines, CPU, chipset, GPU, wireless chips etc, > and in my experience they have been the easiest machines to get Linux > up and running on. Support for their wireless cards is probably the > best I have come across. Support for their graphics chips is not too > shabby either, Compiz, not that I use it, works out of the box. > > Peace, > > Philip > Thanks folks. I've traditionally been a fan of AMD although at the moment with the higher performance of the Core processors I've been interested in going for an Intel chip. After speaking to my other half (okay, begging) we (she) has decided that I'm going to go for a dual core CPU and the money saved can go on an upgrade for her PC. So I think I'll be going for the 2.66GHz Core2Duo with 4MB cache and get her an Athlon X2 4000+ (which means I'll still be supporting AMD :-) From what I was reading up on the motherboard I was looking at, it will take a quad core chip so if my needs alter in the next 12 months or so I could possibly upgrade to a quad core chip. Although saying that, I'd probably replace the motherboard too and put my old PC into a MythTV box :-) Rob -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/ -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
