Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Intel Core 2 Duo T5670 @1.8GHz ... does it mean that speed of my CPU is 3.6GHz?


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 finance professional

finance professional

  • Members
  • 33 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:05:39 AM

Posted 03 August 2009 - 12:59 PM

Dear friends,

I have Acer TravelMate 4335 laptop and the processor is Intel Core 2 Duo T5670 @ 1.8GHz. From what I understood after doing some research is that I have two processors in one chip ... so does it mean that total speed of my CPU is 3.6 GHz??

When I look at the CPU Usage in Task Manager than does it show the combined usuage of both the processors or single processor?

Any help would be highly appreciated ..

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 hamluis

hamluis

    Moderator


  • Moderator
  • 56,272 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Killeen, TX
  • Local time:07:09 PM

Posted 03 August 2009 - 01:52 PM

It's really not related to speed at all...rather than that, it's like your CPU now has a helper.

But that helper won't necessarily help on every task...because many programs are not written to take advantage of this helper...or it's not necessary for a given task.

Quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-core:

"The amount of performance gained by the use of a multi-core processor is strongly dependent on the software algorithms and implementation. In particular, the possible gains are limited by the fraction of the software that can be "parallelized" to run on multiple cores simultaneously; this effect is described by Amdahl's law. In the best case, so-called embarrassingly parallel problems may realize speedup factors near the number of cores. Many typical applications, however, do not realize such large speedup factors and thus, the parallelization of software is a significant on-going topic of research."

Also read the Advantages section of that link.

Louis

#3 finance professional

finance professional
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 33 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:05:39 AM

Posted 04 August 2009 - 01:05 PM

Okay, so from what I've understood is that for e.g. Core #1 is running an application with speed of 1.8GHz and another heavy duty application starts (like CD burning plus virus scan) than Core #2 comes into the pictures and "helps" Core #1. Am I right??

Frankly, after going through many posts on Core 2 Duo and Dual Core on various forums, I feel that Intel has lead to all this misunderstanding by naming such processors. Even, I see some confusion among geeks at times.

Louis, I've gone through the wiki page that you've suggested and got some new perspective .. but still my old question still remains .. what would be the speed difference between say core 2 duo with 1.8GHz and single core (eg pentium) with 1.8GHz ???

#4 fairjoeblue

fairjoeblue

  • Members
  • 1,594 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Local time:07:09 PM

Posted 04 August 2009 - 01:23 PM

No.
Dual CPU's don't run in tandem to double the speed.
2 1.8GHz do not equal 3.6GHz

2 1,8GHz = 2 CPU's each running at 1.8GHz .

Where the speed difference comes in is the newer technology is simply faster.
If a C2D only used 1 core @ 1.8GHz it would still be faster then a old [Northwood,Prescott,etc] 1.8 GHz simply because it would work faster.

It would be like a short legged person running a race against a long legged person.
They both cover the same distance but the long legged person should win simply because more distance can be covered per stride.

Another reason a dual core is faster is 1 core doesn't have to run the full load.

Also, many newer programs are coded to take advantage of 2 cores by running on 2 cores simotaniosly.
Each core runs "half" so t works much faster since each CPU only has to do half the work.

Edited by fairjoeblue, 04 August 2009 - 01:32 PM.

OCZ StealthXstream 700W,Gigabyte GA-EP45-UD3R , E8500, Arctic Freezer Pro 7, 3GB G.Skill PC8500,Gigabyte Radeon HD 4850 OC [1GB ], Seagate 250GB SATA II X2 in RAID 0, Samsung SATA DVD burner.

#5 hamluis

hamluis

    Moderator


  • Moderator
  • 56,272 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Killeen, TX
  • Local time:07:09 PM

Posted 04 August 2009 - 01:56 PM

LOL...and you think I'm not confused :thumbsup:?

I can only tell you the way I see things.

Intel and AMD are in the business (they don't do this just for fun) of selling processors. So they each have a vested interest in producing better, improved versions of products that have gone to pasture.

That whole line of business competition has led to a dynamic environment where...CPU speed...has been replaced by CPU efficiency...in terms of marketing CPUs to boxmakers and the general public.

It's gone from how fast (sole criterion) to how efficient (how long will it take me to perform this task with this processor?).

And...we must never discount the necessary hype of new products...not because the differences are really important or pertinent...but that's just the nature of business.

When it comes to multicore processors...the general public (which is blindly ignorant of many things regarding computers and technical matters, in general) thinks that 2 cores are better than 1. Anyone who sells anything knows that more is better, even if you don't understand how more is better.

Well...it just ain't so, IMO. It could be so, if applications existed which take advantage of all this improvement in work techniques...but the reality today is that the vast majority of what consumer-level/home users do on a computer...have been done quite well in prior years by systems which do not have the horsepower of today's systems.

Except for gamers and enterprise-level users...who really are the driving force behind a number of improvements that pass on down to lowly consumer clucks like me :flowers:. Add that to steps which were taken just to be able to sell more computers to the "uninformed public" and you have the situation today where (IMO) users have much more system than they need to do mundane tasks.

Example: Onboard anything...came about just because...all the big players in the market...wanted to make it as easy as possible to sell a computer to new users. In the old days...users had to buy a separate video card...buy a separate sound card...buy a separate NIC...buy a separate USB card...in order to have those functions available for install.

Who benefits? We all do...key manufacturers (Microsoft, Intel, AMD, Dell, HP, etc.) sell more products and users get systems/components which are superior to any previously produced.

The best advice I can give anyone who wants to purchase a system today...is to treat the purchase of such in exactly the same manner that you treat the purchase of an auto. With notable differences in mind.

Price differential and expected life for that user...may vary from the approach taken when purchasing an auto, especially if one has a family. Buying a car is still sort of a family project...buying a computer is not, since the price is low enough (in this country) that every user can realistically afford a system which can be called "mine", not "ours."

A computer is (like an auto) a virtual necessity, but it's also something where a user can exert more of a "personal touch". The persons who assemble their own understand this...the persons who decide they want umpteen cores when there's no need, they understand this often...the persons who want a lavendar laptop instead of a traditional gray or whatever, they understand this.

What I'm trying to say...a computer has the same fluffy rhetoric that any other product sold to millions/billions of human beings has. But a user can get away from the empty rhetoric and see if for what is...by just taking advantage of all the data/information available by using a search engine called Google.

And realizing that...reading "reviews" is only useful...if you choose a reliable, honest "reviewer". "Customer reviews" are as quirky as anything else, but some persons write those with honesty and are not just being angry or fluffy.

The hardware in computerdom for consumers like me...has come a loooong way. The prices for systems/components has come a long way also, making what might have been consider a "minor luxury" available to anyone who can scrape up a couple of hundred dollar bills. I bet that most persons don't even realize that they pay MUCH more Internet connectivity...than they do for their systems :trumpet:.

Sooo...don't fret over speed of CPU or why there are so many multicore systems with so few multicore apps...just take advantage of it and be aware that, right now...those vendors are doing their best to provide us with more alluring products tomorrow...and we will like them and take advantage of them, whether we be businesmen, students, or clucks sitting at home like I do :inlove:.

We are the beneficiaries of the efforts of others...that's why they sell these products to us, rather than give them to us.

To anwer your question...regardless of the speed difference, I can flatly say that any dual-core processor running at the same speed as a single-core processor...will outwork that single-core processor.

I base that on the fact that...no one has ever worked to develop a slower, less efficient computer part during the time that I have been interested in such (the last 13 years).

Louis




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users