Posts: 1,596
Threads: 71
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation:
0
Okay, I just ordered a new computer and I'm a little ignorant about the dual-core processors.
My computer comes with an Intel Core 2 Duo 2.66 GHz processor, but I've seen single-core models on slower computers that clock like 3.2 GHz or whatever, but the Dual-core processor is supposed to be faster. How does that work? Does the 2.66 GHz apply to each core?
I realize there already is a thread talking about Dual-core processors, but I'd like to know what the difference is in speed and how. Is it just about the organization?
Posts: 3,177
Threads: 53
Joined: Mar 2003
Reputation:
0
the busses on dualcore are bigger so they can handle the tasks cleaner. you also can buffer without the heavy idle time of standard cores from intel. speed isnt everything if the pipeline is thinner. just like the amd turion. its 1.6 but it can handle more than the athlon 4000+ in some categories. people just want higher speed because of the system requirements on some programs and games. the newer games require 2.5+ghz to run it but core2 should do fine.
single core has a shorter bus so it idles and takes a bit to process. the higher gig ones tend to heat more and their threads are a bit longer so it takes a bit more time to process the information. dual core is better for burning anyways. you wont have to spend so many hours burning a dvd since the bus and buffer are larger on core2.
i have the c2e and the turion and they run about the same. just turion doesnt take as much in some areas because its pipelines are slightly thicker and its threads are closer together so it doesnt have to travel far to send the information. so if you get a game that requires higher, theres a chance you can still install it and play fine with it.
Posts: 984
Threads: 200
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
0
A hertz is not a performance measurement but, rather, a cycle-frequency measurement (the amount of cycles per second.) The power of each cycle in combination with the amount of cycles is what determines performance. To realize the difference, it would be helpful to imagine that you have two bikes in front of you and they are both trying to peddle themselves out of the mud. One bike has tires without much traction, and the other has tires with a lot of traction. Every rotation of the tires on a bike would represent a cycle of work. Now, imagine that both bikes were spinning their wheels at five cycles per second (five hertz.) The one with the traction will get out of the mud quicker--not because of the amount of cycles, or rotations of the tires, but because more work was done with each cycle. I hope that was clear.
In the processor industry it is not much different. This is why you can place a 2ghz AMD Athlon against a 2ghz Intel Pentium 4 and see the AMD perform better--in the previous example, AMD would be the one with the better traction. In general, it is better to compare performance by actual testing and relate the gigahertz to the consumption of electricity. Each cycle of work requires a certain amount of electricity so the more cycles the more electricity will be used. Consider the amount of energy would be required on the bicycle example earlier--the one spinning his tires endlessly without traction may get out of the mud but it requires more energy. This is why you will see laptop and notebook computer processors practically equalling the performance of their desktop counterparts while using less gigahertz to do it--less energy consumption to perform a task.
A dual core processor is sort of like adding more traction to the tires. A 2ghz single-core processor will have less traction than the 2ghz dual-core processor. Both processors will use the same amount of cycles but the one with more traction will get out of the mud quicker. Of course, like one would expect, the issue is a bit more complicated than that, since software needs to be written to take advantage of the extra work per cycle. But, in general, two peices of software will work with one core each so they will both get the power of a whole processor so multi-tasking will improve quite a bit. Again, this is simplified but it proves the point I am trying to make. For software written for multi-core processors you'll notice that they perform much better; software written for single-core processors won't really show a difference; regardless of the software being used, when multiple peices of software are being used one will notice an increase in performance because more tasks are completed per processing cycle.
Null
Posts: 1,596
Threads: 71
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation:
0
Thank you both for you input, I understand the difference a little better now. Nice use of the extended metaphor, Juke, that helped simplify things a lot.
I'm glad the dual-core processor is better for multitasking, because the computer I have now is usually bogged down by me running multiple programs at the same time... (I use Skype to talk to a friend while we're playing games, and she's constantly breaking up during loading sequences)
