Jump to content

Core display


Recommended Posts

CCleaner has displayed the CPU MHZ/GHZ fine for years.

 

Why not show whether a user has 1, 2, 4, 6 cores, etc?

 

I personally would love a better way to know my netbook is dual core than to have to use the task manager!

 

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CCleaner has displayed the CPU MHZ/GHZ fine for years.

 

Why not show whether a user has 1, 2, 4, 6 cores, etc?

 

I personally would love a better way to know my netbook is dual core than to have to use the task manager!

 

Thanks!

 

Speccy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Speccy?

Yes, but thats still another program to launch, which is worse than using the task manager.

 

CCleaner already shows the CPU speed, why not how many cores?

This is every bit as important as showing the CPU speed, because whats the point of showing that, if your only showing 1/2, 1/4, 1/6 the rated speed?

Everyone knows each additional core adds another "processor" & that totally changes the "speed" because workloads get distributed among the cores!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone knows each additional core adds another "processor" & that totally changes the "speed" because workloads get distributed among the cores!

 

To what extent is this true ?

 

I know that extra cores give the potential for extra speed,

but thought there were still applications in use that could gain no benefit.

I still remember as it it was yesterday when some software providers claimed multi-core operation as a unique advantage over competitors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To what extent is this true ?

 

I know that extra cores give the potential for extra speed,

but thought there were still applications in use that could gain no benefit.

I still remember as it it was yesterday when some software providers claimed multi-core operation as a unique advantage over competitors.

 

Alan, maybe you cannot tell a difference...

 

But I can!

 

I have a P4 3.2 GHZ dual core & I can definitely tell the difference on mine vs others when ripping music/videos, or converting files, or even on my netbook (dual core celeron (atom chip) it makes a HUGE difference because celerons are only 512 kb cache compared to P4 having 2MB L2 cache.

 

Try running a netbook and windows 7... Terrible! But with dual core celeron, it aint great, but it aint bad either.

 

Maybe you should use your computer for more than word processing!

 

* Being able to tell the number of cores at a glance would really help give an indicator of the power of a system, which would then help me when I recommend someone what to do. Lower powered machines can't handle as much, so would have to be bumped down, while higher powered ones can use more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alan, maybe you cannot tell a difference...

 

But I can!

 

I have a P4 3.2 GHZ dual core & I can definitely tell the difference on mine vs others when ripping music/videos, or converting files, or even on my netbook (dual core celeron (atom chip) it makes a HUGE difference because celerons are only 512 kb cache compared to P4 having 2MB L2 cache.

 

Try running a netbook and windows 7... Terrible! But with dual core celeron, it aint great, but it aint bad either.

 

Maybe you should use your computer for more than word processing!

 

* Being able to tell the number of cores at a glance would really help give an indicator of the power of a system, which would then help me when I recommend someone what to do. Lower powered machines can't handle as much, so would have to be bumped down, while higher powered ones can use more.

Uh, not all applications take advantage of all the cores available. For example, many games can/will utilize two cores but won't utilize four cores despite the capacity in the hardware.

 

And I don't get how pushing Ctrl+Alt+Del or Ctrl+Shift+Esc is too hard. CCleaner is meant to clean up junk files on your computer while Speccy gives more detailed information on the computer. Also, why would you open up CCleaner when you're trying to give someone advice with their computer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I have a P4 3.2 GHZ dual core & I can definitely tell the difference on mine vs others when ripping music/videos, or converting files, or even on my netbook (dual core celeron (atom chip) it makes a HUGE difference because celerons are only 512 kb cache compared to P4 having 2MB L2 cache.

 

Sorry, but your experience is restricted to what you have experienced, e.g. ripping music etc.,

and is not relevant to my query.

 

Neither was I saying that there could be no speed enhancement.

 

I am in effect challenging the validity of your statement

"Everyone knows each additional core adds another "processor" & that totally changes the "speed" because workloads get distributed among the cores! "

 

I certainly accept that the job CAN get done quicker if the workload is "distributed among the cores",

but I remember seeing a few years ago on a user forum (possibly Piriform) complaints that only one of his cores was used by the application.

 

Two specific questions

1) Are 100% of all currently installed applications able to benefit from quad cores, or what percentage of downloads can use 4 cores ?

2) How much faster can a partition be defragged or wiped given the benefit of quad cores ? ! !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I certainly accept that the job CAN get done quicker if the workload is "distributed among the cores",

but I remember seeing a few years ago on a user forum (possibly Piriform) complaints that only one of his cores was used by the application.

 

Two specific questions

1) Are 100% of all currently installed applications able to benefit from quad cores, or what percentage of downloads can use 4 cores ?

2) How much faster can a partition be defragged or wiped given the benefit of quad cores ? ! !

Alan, here is the deal:

 

If you use XP Home, it won't support more than 1 core.

You have to have XP Pro for multiple cores... I have Pro, not Home!

 

The user probably had a Home version, which is WHY it wasn't being used.

 

1) If you only use wordpad, calculator, solitaire, you can get by with a pentium 66 MHZ machine with 16 bit color & 24 MB ram & windows 95...

Most people, however, do use things like Office 2007, CAD, Video processing, CD ripping, etc, many things that can be sped up with another core.

2) This is under the CCleaner suggestion forum, NOT the defraggler, so your post is in the wrong section.

 

The request is for CCleaner (not defraggler) to identify multiple cores & list the number (dual core/quad core/hex core, etc...)

 

I presume you got a little confused, & it does happen to the best of us. So don't feel bad about it!

 

Thank you!

 

P.S.

 

Yes, multi-core processors DO substantially speed up defraggling, if that answers your question. They can shave 30 min or more off sometimes, depending on how much had to be defraggled. In some cases, it can shave off a few hours. I definitely notice a difference in the speed it takes when I clock it with a computer some user has in their pc (specially ones loaded with tons of things they don't need) & connecting to mine with an external USB drive connector. Mine is usually way faster getting it done. And yes, mine IS dual core... It is also multi-threaded.

 

Multiple cores help keep enough CPU available to do a smooth defrag (instead of maxing the CPU because someone has Yahoo, AVG, Google updater, AIM, MSN, & who knows what kind of startup programs loading!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not confused, and I now use Windows 7 Ultimate.

Also at no time have I referred to my experience.

 

I do not believe that those who complain about a specific product not using all cores are doing so because their operating system cannot do the job,

they do so because they know that some of their software products ARE using all cores, but some are not.

I also remember seeing complaints about UNEQUAL sharing, e.g. only using 2 cores out of 4.

 

Computational Problem, what is "X" after computing :-

C = A + B;
D = E + F;
G = C * D;
X = G - D + C;

Are you saying that Vista has more intelligence than XP,

and can somehow automatically allocate each of 4 cores to operate in parallel with results not yet evaluated by its companions ?

 

I understood that the multi-core magic depended upon programmers and compilers using new techniques developed since the single core era.

 

I find it incredible that Vista has the ability to make full use of all 4 cores when running old software that was written before they were created.

 

O.K., Defragging does need some thinking time that can be multi-cored IF SUITABLY DESIGNED,

But how about WIPING a disk, will that also happen 4 times faster on VISTA than XP ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, multi-core processors DO substantially speed up defraggling, if that answers your question. They can shave 30 min or more off sometimes, depending on how much had to be defraggled. In some cases, it can shave off a few hours. I definitely notice a difference in the speed it takes when I clock it with a computer some user has in their pc (specially ones loaded with tons of things they don't need) & connecting to mine with an external USB drive connector. Mine is usually way faster getting it done. And yes, mine IS dual core... It is also multi-threaded.

 

Multiple cores help keep enough CPU available to do a smooth defrag (instead of maxing the CPU because someone has Yahoo, AVG, Google updater, AIM, MSN, & who knows what kind of startup programs loading!

Are you sure about this? I'm pretty sure multiple cores barely affect the time it takes to defragment something. The bottleneck is the speed of your hard drive not your CPU. If you look at the CPU usage when you defragment something there is barely any usage because all the CPU has to do is decide on where the file should be moved to. Also when has Yahoo!, AVG, Google, etc. taken up a lot of CPU time? The only thing they take up is memory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly.

 

I wasn't saying CCleaner should be some magical 4 core distributor, or whatever... (Add the kitchen sink, please!)

I was only asking that it show the true processor type. Single? Dual? Quad core?

 

If having multiple cores is really no added benefit, maybe we should not even use them!

 

Hi, my single core 3.2 GHZ machine is just as fast as your 6 core machine! (Just kidding!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you sure about this? I'm pretty sure multiple cores barely affect the time it takes to defragment something. The bottleneck is the speed of your hard drive not your CPU. If you look at the CPU usage when you defragment something there is barely any usage because all the CPU has to do is decide on where the file should be moved to. Also when has Yahoo!, AVG, Google, etc. taken up a lot of CPU time? The only thing they take up is memory.

 

Ok, what I am getting at, is not that you can't run multiple applications, but many times, people have a ton of startup items... Weather applications, updaters, reminder programs, & things that constantly check the web, do things on the pc, eat up CPU time.

 

Of course, a user with a higher MHZ/GHZ machine can more easily multitask, instead of getting bottlenecked.

That, is what I am trying to say, my friend...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying that Vista has more intelligence than XP,

and can somehow automatically allocate each of 4 cores to operate in parallel with results not yet evaluated by its companions ?

 

I find it incredible that Vista has the ability to make full use of all 4 cores when running old software that was written before they were created.

 

O.K., Defragging does need some thinking time that can be multi-cored IF SUITABLY DESIGNED,

But how about WIPING a disk, will that also happen 4 times faster on VISTA than XP ?

 

Nice!!!!

 

I don't remember saying anything about Vista + quad cores, + (fill in the blank)... Bang head here... Sigh, lol!

Alan, the beauty of a multi-core processor is that they have more CPU clock time to allocate, thus finishing the job faster.

This means that under normal circumstances, with 0 things running, they may be kinda close. But try doing a defrag when a user has 30 or even 50 things running at once (think games? development apps? etc...)

 

All I was trying to say is that multi-cores alleviate the stress & when a single core would be bogged down, a multi core is still ready to go...

It is pretty pointless to argue that multiple cores are worthless...

 

It has already been proven many times in real world testing the value of multiple cores. While defraggler may not draw much processor time, if your running a PC that is burdened down with the things it is running, vs a multiple core machine, the multiple cored machine would be able to handle the additional drain far better, & without having to work nearly as hard.

 

This is where the real speed advantage kicks in...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly.

 

I wasn't saying CCleaner should be some magical 4 core distributor, or whatever... (Add the kitchen sink, please!)

I was only asking that it show the true processor type. Single? Dual? Quad core?

 

If having multiple cores is really no added benefit, maybe we should not even use them!

 

Hi, my single core 3.2 GHZ machine is just as fast as your 6 core machine! (Just kidding!)

No-one is denying the benefits of multi-core processors but NOT EVERY program takes advantage of multi-cores or a certain amount of cores. What is the point of adding your requested feature? You can open up task manager or Speccy. Pressing a three button combination isn't very taxing.

 

Ok, what I am getting at, is not that you can't run multiple applications, but many times, people have a ton of startup items... Weather applications, updaters, reminder programs, & things that constantly check the web, do things on the pc, eat up CPU time.

 

Of course, a user with a higher MHZ/GHZ machine can more easily multitask, instead of getting bottlenecked.

That, is what I am trying to say, my friend...

What applications do you use when you defrag? Updaters, reminders don't eat up CPU they eat up memory. Unless you decide to play games, do 3D modelling nothing really taxes the CPU. Next you defrag open up task manager and look at the processes. You'll see that Defraggler or whatever defragmentation software you use barely uses any CPU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't remember saying anything about Vista + quad cores, + (fill in the blank)... Bang head here... Sigh, lol!

You stipulated that "If you use XP Home, it won't support more than 1 core."

 

I interpreted this as meaning that less restricted and more advanced versions of Windows did have multi-core capability, hence I postulated Vista.

 

I also interpreted your statements that all applications run much faster with multi-core as meaning that Vista onwards had the built in intelligence to analyse the code due for execution,

and to break it into separate chunks that it would then allocate to different cores for simultaneous execution.

 

I have in the past assumed, and just confirmed after a brief Google search,

that it is possible to determine which core will execute an application,

and I think it should be possible for an application programmer to split his code for simultaneous execution,

but many applications have been written without this capability.

 

In practice I believe there is a general benefit that a multi-core system has the capability of simultaneously running different applications.

 

This thread has gone way off topic because of your statement :-

"Everyone knows each additional core adds another "processor" & that totally changes the "speed" because workloads get distributed among the cores! "

Although I may have several applications running,

apart from Internet threat reactions by my A.V./Firewall/Behaviour protection,

only the application I am currently interacting with takes more than 1%.

My computer is almost never CPU bound (apart from reactions to Internet Threats),

but the delays in operation are generally because it is waiting for my decision/action,

or because of Disc I/O delays.

 

On the basis that I am only waiting for the one application I am interacting with,

that application will never have a higher speed on my Windows 7 by virtue of quad-core hardware unless it can simultaneously use more than one of the four cores,

and that will never happen unless the application has been suitably coded (possibly common in the future),

or the CPU and O.S. has the intelligence to share out the code amongst the available cores,

(intelligence such as HAL in "2001: A Space Odyssey")

 

 

Alan, the beauty of a multi-core processor is that they have more CPU clock time to allocate, thus finishing the job faster.

This means that under normal circumstances, with 0 things running, they may be kinda close. But try doing a defrag when a user has 30 or even 50 things running at once (think games? development apps? etc...)

Now I see where you are coming from.

You are much braver than I ! ! !

 

I added one partition in empty space on my Laptop with all applications closed.

Even following that safety advice all partitions vanished and I needed the Boot CD to rescue them.

Now I not only close all applications other than the Partition Manager,

I also block the Internet and disable all malware protection before adjusting any partitions.

 

I also take similar precautions when defragging a partition.

I still remember the need to back-up all applications on a stack of 5.25 inch floppy discs (about 100 off) before risking a defrag under DOS.

I know that defragging is safer now than then,

but 30 or 50 games and things fighting for resources at the same time would seriously disturb my mental balance.

 

I would far rather allow the defragging to use (or waste) all the resources and avoid any destructive conflicts.

I would feel that minimised the risk of discovering a defect in the defrag utility or the code of the Microsoft API's it uses.

Obviously Microsoft API's have no defects, nor buffer overflow vulnerabilities, and Patch Tuesdays are not needed ! !

 

I would assume that 30 or 50 applications running during the defrag will result in many files being "in-use" and not defragged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Long story short, 2 core, 4 core, 6 core processors are faster than single core & always will be in the exact same configuration setup scenarios.

 

I just wanted to ask about support for showing whether a processor is single, double, quad, etc.

 

I'm not concerned with which OS does a better job, whatever, I just want it to show my cores!

 

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Long story short, 2 core, 4 core, 6 core processors are faster than single core & always will be in the exact same configuration setup scenarios.

I have no problem accepting that the above is true under SOME scenarios,

such as when multiple applications would otherwise be waiting their turn for a for CPU cycles from a single core.

But I have seen no evidence that it applies to a scenario in which only one application is making significant use of the CPU,

or situations in which all such applications are waiting for information (disc or Internet).

 

My single core Laptop could only download 4.3 Mbits/per sec to feed all that wanted a bit of the Internet.

I really doubt that my quad core Desktop would be able to suck 17.2 Mbits/sec to keep all applications happy ! !

 

So far I have only contributed to this topic because I am not part of the "Everyone that knows each additional core ..." increases speed in every scenario.

 

So far as your main point is concerned, I concede that it may some people may appreciate knowing the number of cores,

but where do we draw the limit - should CCleaner also display the clock speed, the core temperatures.

Should Speccy be bundled in with CCleaner ?

 

I believe it is far more important that the Computer information displayed should be of relevance when a screen shot is posted when seeking help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My single core Laptop could only download 4.3 Mbits/per sec to feed all that wanted a bit of the Internet.

I really doubt that my quad core Desktop would be able to suck 17.2 Mbits/sec to keep all applications happy ! !

 

I am not asking for Speccy to be bundled with it... Sigh...

 

I just want it to show ALL my processor cores!

Sure, there are some applications with relative overhead that may not substantially benefit...

 

But I find that sometimes it is necessary to relegate certain processor intensive tasks to a single core, while another core is free to crunch other things.

That said, not everyone utilizes the PC the same way.

As such, perhaps some people don't even connect to the internet, & so would beg to differ that no-one needs CCleaner, as the Add/Remove can load in only a minute or two, instead of the few seconds CCleaner takes...

 

That said, if an application is only gonna show 1 of your 2 cores, or 1 of your 4 cores, or 1 of your 6 cores, it would be better if it did not show it at all.

For it would be all too easy for someone to hazard the guess that since this 6 core computer (shown as a single core in CCleaner) is soooo fast, then why do I need additional cores? Think I'll get another single core system!

 

To sum it up briefly, people can make analogous statements relative to a situation that are not necessarily true, due to the fact that CCleaner only shows 1 core...

 

It should not be hard to show all 2, 4, or 6 cores...

This is a small thing to ask...

 

I do not know why you make it seem like it is the end of the world.

If a PC has multiple cores, that's like having multiple CPU's & although in said situation, you have not received much of an added benefit, I have utilized multi-core processors enough to know that they do save you a LOT of time.

 

It doesn't seem like it at times, but I have clocked it, & they are substantially faster.

Hence, the reason I merely ask for multi-core support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would assume that 30 or 50 applications running during the defrag will result in many files being "in-use" and not defragged.

 

Which is why you CClean, then Defraggler after your complete.

 

Also, right click a process under task manager to enable a process to be offset to a different core.

You may or may not have encountered this novel methodology of altering the core a program or process is relegated to, but I decided to intervene on behalf of your situation in order that I may present a more simple solution to your ingenuous Rube Goldberg process stacking dilemma.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That said, if an application is only gonna show 1 of your 2 cores, or 1 of your 4 cores, or 1 of your 6 cores, it would be better if it did not show it at all.

Where on earth are you coming from ! !

CCleaner does NOT show 1 of my 4 cores. It plainly states that my Desktop has an "AMD Phenom 9500 Quad-Core Processor".

I am not confused, why are you ?

 

For it would be all too easy for someone to hazard the guess that since this 6 core computer (shown as a single core in CCleaner) is soooo fast, then why do I need additional cores? Think I'll get another single core system!

Do you know some-one stupid enough to base their purchasing decisions upon their failure to understand that Quad means 4,

and how is that the fault of CCleaner ?

 

It should not be hard to show all 2, 4, or 6 cores...

This is a small thing to ask...

I agree, it is a small thing to ask,

BUT WHY WASTE TIME enumerating all the cores every time CCleaner is launched ?

and why waste screen area which may be better used to show the results of Analysis/Cleaning ?

When I go buying socks I never have to count my toes. I am sure I would remember if I lost one ! !

 

It doesn't seem like it at times, but I have clocked it, & they are substantially faster.

Hence, the reason I merely ask for multi-core support.

I have NEVER disputed that multi-core is faster IN SOME SITUATIONS,

but you make very broad sweeping statements which I consider do not always apply.

 

I would assume that 30 or 50 applications running during the defrag will result in many files being "in-use" and not defragged.

Which is why you CClean, then Defraggler after your complete.

 

Also, right click a process under task manager to enable a process to be offset to a different core.

You may or may not have encountered this novel methodology of altering the core a program or process is relegated to, but I decided to intervene on behalf of your situation in order that I may present a more simple solution to your ingenuous Rube Goldberg process stacking dilemma.

Sorry I failed to attribute the "30 or 50 applications" to your post #14

Your "ingenuous Rube Goldberg process stacking dilemma" is truly the creation of Super Fast and not Alan_B.

 

So far as my AMD Quad-Core system is concerned, I consider CCleaner to completely identify my quantity of cores and this topic is a meaningless request,

I am wondering what misleading information are you seeing,

and is it misleading because of a defect in your Operating System or installation or the processor itself ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.