F
Flasherly
Took out a new 3.4Ghz, hadn't even run past a hardware build, and
stuck this in:
IPentium D805 2.66 GHz SL8ZH 2M/533 dual core 64-bit.
Both right off BIOStar's CPU support listings and no problementoes.
See in the BIOS: Disable Multi-Core (close enough for not verbatim).
Don't recall if that was a permanent BIOS-display field and there
before I pulled the single-core 3.4Ghz;- neither recall whether or not
it was logically active at that time, an unknown, although in the
present dual-core state it is.
Past speed was 800Mhz FSB at 3.4Ghz, whereas this is stated as above.
Temperature is 10 degrees Fahrenheit cooler than was displayed for the
former 65-watt single core, although the dual core does draw 30-watts
more power for a 95-watt CPU.
In theory, two 2.66 cores are appreciable for multimedia applications,
so named overall in pragmatic terms, for a great number of users not
used to running, say, anything else avoidably programmed for multiple
cores. The Operating System we've simply chosen to ignore, in reason
because that would be effectively a given same sense, purpose and
support provides, as would initially buying a $10-Ebay Pentium D805;-
they're thereby both rendered equal and eminent, whereby and to the
stated premise for an end of programs supportive of a multi-core. By
the same theory, furthermore, and beyond the 3.4Ghz, for some I reason
I apparently chose first to buy, but not use, withal were I to over-
clock that, say presumably successfully from 3.4 to 4.5Ghz, the dual-
core I can expect to yet outperform, over the higher speed, by dint of
efficiency provided a multi-core platform;- two cores over two
distinct processes conjoined by multi-core support, theoretically,
will therefore be rendered at 2.66Ghz more successfully than a single
4.5Ghz core, as it were, and its attempt to reconcile happenstance in
a concurrent programming environment.
My conclusion, specifically in drawing aim at multimedia applications,
is a benefit thereby to be derived within one multimedia application I
do know is programmed for multiple cores, with an array of narrow-band
sound spectrum analyzers, compression, expansion operatives for aural
augmentation and such;- coupled for as I do and within to visual
presentment, at best but without visual multi-core programming
techniques employed, together I then should see a raised performance
for levels of encoded complexity given the player.
One difficultly posed, at present, would be if at 3.4Ghz or a higher
multiple, which might stand better both in audio-visual presentment at
parity to the dual 2.66Ghz configuration;- the mutiband audio
compander will benefit by dint of programming for both cores, although
will it, that is in any appreciable sense, without a video player
equally endowed?
stuck this in:
IPentium D805 2.66 GHz SL8ZH 2M/533 dual core 64-bit.
Both right off BIOStar's CPU support listings and no problementoes.
See in the BIOS: Disable Multi-Core (close enough for not verbatim).
Don't recall if that was a permanent BIOS-display field and there
before I pulled the single-core 3.4Ghz;- neither recall whether or not
it was logically active at that time, an unknown, although in the
present dual-core state it is.
Past speed was 800Mhz FSB at 3.4Ghz, whereas this is stated as above.
Temperature is 10 degrees Fahrenheit cooler than was displayed for the
former 65-watt single core, although the dual core does draw 30-watts
more power for a 95-watt CPU.
In theory, two 2.66 cores are appreciable for multimedia applications,
so named overall in pragmatic terms, for a great number of users not
used to running, say, anything else avoidably programmed for multiple
cores. The Operating System we've simply chosen to ignore, in reason
because that would be effectively a given same sense, purpose and
support provides, as would initially buying a $10-Ebay Pentium D805;-
they're thereby both rendered equal and eminent, whereby and to the
stated premise for an end of programs supportive of a multi-core. By
the same theory, furthermore, and beyond the 3.4Ghz, for some I reason
I apparently chose first to buy, but not use, withal were I to over-
clock that, say presumably successfully from 3.4 to 4.5Ghz, the dual-
core I can expect to yet outperform, over the higher speed, by dint of
efficiency provided a multi-core platform;- two cores over two
distinct processes conjoined by multi-core support, theoretically,
will therefore be rendered at 2.66Ghz more successfully than a single
4.5Ghz core, as it were, and its attempt to reconcile happenstance in
a concurrent programming environment.
My conclusion, specifically in drawing aim at multimedia applications,
is a benefit thereby to be derived within one multimedia application I
do know is programmed for multiple cores, with an array of narrow-band
sound spectrum analyzers, compression, expansion operatives for aural
augmentation and such;- coupled for as I do and within to visual
presentment, at best but without visual multi-core programming
techniques employed, together I then should see a raised performance
for levels of encoded complexity given the player.
One difficultly posed, at present, would be if at 3.4Ghz or a higher
multiple, which might stand better both in audio-visual presentment at
parity to the dual 2.66Ghz configuration;- the mutiband audio
compander will benefit by dint of programming for both cores, although
will it, that is in any appreciable sense, without a video player
equally endowed?
