Should i get the PC

[Kingdaro]

unless thats at least a dual core 4.0. no you shouldnt buy it.

It's a quad core, 4ghz.

Even if it were only a dual core 3ghz, that's good enough considering the graphics card.

[Ad Bot]

[Bisjac]

It's a quad core, 4ghz.

Even if it were only a dual core 3ghz, that's good enough considering the graphics card.

well yeah but he listed it as a single. no single core processor at ANY speed is good enough for modern games.

[Ipquarx]

i would prefer a dual core 4.0ghz, over a single core 20.0ghz.

This makes no sense. A single core 20GHz would easily outperform a even a quad core 4.0GHz.

[Blockzillahead]

This makes no sense. A single core 20GHz would easily outperform a even a quad core 4.0GHz.

It's not as easy as just comparing speeds, multi-core technology will always be better since multi-tasking is an absolute essential to most if not all of todays electronic devices.

[ßlöükfáce]

I'm glad I already have a windows 7

[Ipquarx]

It's not as easy as just comparing speeds, multi-core technology will always be better since multi-tasking is an absolute essential to most if not all of todays electronic devices.

The thing with that is, a 20GHz CPU could do the same number of tasks in a linear order in less time than a quad core 4GHz because of how blazingly fast it would be. Of course you'd need really fast RAM to make this happen; but assuming that wasn't an issue the 20GHz would easily come out on top.

[Frankie²]

dont cpus just multiply the ghz?
so like a quad core 4gz is theoretically  a 16ghz single core

[Treynolds416]

It has excellent specs

What? No it doesn't

It's a quadcore apu from AMD, most likely a low-tier denomination. 4.0 ghz is nothing for AMD because they're very inefficient per clock cycle
A 1TB drive that's almost guaranteed to be 5400 rpm
No OS (which is only around $100 kingdaro)
8GB of most likely 1333mhz ram
Only 1 year of warranty
No guarantee on expansion slots

It's actually a reasonably fair value (I estimate the OEM parts are around $250), but it's nothing incredible like you guys are saying

[Ipquarx]

dont cpus just multiply the ghz?
so like a quad core 4gz is theoretically  a 16ghz single core

Sort of. A quad core 4GHz would be more like a 15GHz single core, since multithreading isn't perfect it doesn't just multiply out perfectly, but it's pretty close. You can do roughly 4x the work in the same amount of time as a single core. Which, again, doesn't exceed or even equal out to a 20GHz core.

[Kingdaro]

dont cpus just multiply the ghz?
so like a quad core 4gz is theoretically  a 16ghz single core

Correct me if I'm wrong, but (most) applications use only a single core. When each core runs at 4ghz, that application runs at 4ghz. Because a computer can only essentially run only one single task or command at a time, running a second application would mean having to run both in parallel. The computer needs to alternate between the program's parts and execute them one after another, rather than both at the same time in every instance. The command stack would look something like this:

Code: [Select]

do something for program 1
do something for program 2
do something for program 1
do something for program 2

And basically, both programs would be running at 2ghz. With a third program, they'd be running at 4/3 ghz because of this fact, and so on.

Multiple cores allow programs to truly be run in parallel, meaning with a quad core, you could actually execute four commands at once, rather than process one after another. If four different programs were "assigned" to four different cores, all would run at 4ghz, without being slowed down by another program running on the same core.

Because of this, if you had one singular program running on a quad core 4ghz, and (for comparison purposes) a 10ghz single core, the 10ghz would win, because the first program can't actually use another core to go faster.

[Bisjac]

The thing with that is, a 20GHz CPU could do the same number of tasks in a linear order in less time than a quad core 4GHz because of how blazingly fast it would be. Of course you'd need really fast RAM to make this happen; but assuming that wasn't an issue the 20GHz would easily come out on top.

it dosnt even take much to perform a single process. being able to start the next process quicker isnt as good as being able to run 2x4x6x8 at once.


during the last 30 years. a process hasnt gotten bigger, but we have needed to process millions more of them then we use to.

[Ipquarx]

it dosnt even take much to perform a single process. being able to start the next process quicker isnt as good as being able to run 2x4x6x8 at once.

It is if it means the job as a whole gets done quicker.

[Bisjac]

well think of it as the standard doubling of power.

in most all hardware standards, every roughly 2-3 years, power has doubled in the standard models.

however processor speed hasnt change much at all in the last 6 years. but we keep adding more cells/cores to them instead.

if a process has remained the same size for the better part of computer existance, what point is it being able to run it a tiny bit faster. its all about multitasking these days. run 4-8 processes at once instead of that 1 at a time.

and run at a time to keep up with those multicores would require a stuffload of power and heat. just unnecessary.


note: a program/game is not "a process"

every program or game runs thousands/millions of processes per second.

[Ipquarx]

But this isn't about processors in general, it's about dual/quad core 4.0GHz versus single core 20GHz. It doesn't matter how many millions of things you have to do, even if you had the perfect multithreaded implementation to do the work on the quad/dual core, the 20GHz would still outperform it.

[Bisjac]

But this isn't about processors in general, it's about dual/quad core 4.0GHz versus single core 20GHz. It doesn't matter how many millions of things you have to do, even if you had the perfect multithreaded implementation to do the work on the quad/dual core, the 20GHz would still outperform it.

if this were true. all home computers would instead be "supercomputers" meaning multiple single core processors.

but EVERY hardware developer on earth knows better. and is using the hyper threading now.

if you think you know better then the entire industry, then you should write some emails.