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

Dual Vs Quad Processors


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 Threesom666

Threesom666

  • Banned
  • 131 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:05:54 PM

Posted 05 September 2017 - 03:16 PM

Im still having problems figuring out the difference. My old computer I think had just one. I can bring up the specs if asked. Now I have a new one that says dual which is supposed to be twice as fast right? Two processors? Now when its clocked which i think 2.4 then it says @ 2. Thats for 4.4 total speed right? and in the quad that would make it 4 times as fast making it 8.8? or is it 2.4 max and just all 4 working to get that limit? Its all very confusing and Ive read several articles on it. Ive also noticed that the speeds are generally not all that fast.



BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 britechguy

britechguy

    Been there, done that, got the T-shirt


  • Moderator
  • 8,147 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Staunton, VA
  • Local time:08:54 PM

Posted 05 September 2017 - 03:26 PM

Unless you want to get into studying process threading (splitting a program into component parts that can run side by side and have their respective results brought together) and processor threading (splitting process threads among actual processor cores) you still won't really know all that much about how multi-processor CPUs work.

 

Your attempt to make speed changes linear doesn't work, that much I can tell you.  There are programs that were not developed or compiled such that they are threaded and will stick to a single processor.  

 

I've forgotten more than I remember about the theory of process and processor threading.  Since I'm no longer developing code and I have no control over any of the components related to threading it's gone into the "beyond my need to remember or even care about" category. 


Brian  AKA  Bri the Tech Guy (website in my user profile) - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1803, Build 17134 

      Memory is a crazy woman that hoards rags and throws away food.

                    ~ Austin O'Malley

 

 

 

              

 


#3 Just_One_Question

Just_One_Question

  • Members
  • 1,400 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bulgaria
  • Local time:03:54 AM

Posted 05 September 2017 - 03:34 PM

As far as I know, dual-core and up basically means that your processor's structure is kinda as if you had 2 processors and more, each working on a different task simultaneously. Ultimately, whereas in theory dual-core+ CPUs should work twice+ faster, in reality that is rarely the case, as many of the programs and software features are not properly made to run on more than a single (1 core) CPU. Still, even without the proper optimization, pretty much any dual-core and up CPU works faster than a single-core one. Think of it as car engines - increasing the horsepower twice or more does not necessarily mean a speedier car if you don't have the handling, suspension, braking and transmission to supplement it. However, in most case, both in terms of cars and processors, increasing the horsepower (or in CPUs going to dual-core, triple-core, quad-core, hexa-core, octa-core, deca-core and so on) in most cases does make the car faster.

TL;DR: Increasing the cores makes the CPU faster but not mathematically precisely twice, four times or more faster. :)

 

P.S. By the way, here is where I first found out the very basics of multi-core processors about 7 years ago when I was like 15 and I remember I had to hide, because I didn't want to be busted that I was still up at night, lol.:lmao:


Edited by Just_One_Question, 05 September 2017 - 03:44 PM.


#4 Threesom666

Threesom666
  • Topic Starter

  • Banned
  • 131 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:05:54 PM

Posted 07 September 2017 - 02:11 PM

After reading all of this Im still left dubious. It seems it is all a big false advertisement and unnecessary. Left in what I had originally had in the "beyond my need to remember or even care about" category."



#5 Drillingmachine

Drillingmachine

  • Members
  • 2,401 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:03:54 AM

Posted 07 September 2017 - 02:47 PM

I try to explain clean and short. On dual core CPU you have 2 CPU's on same package. On quad core CPU you have 4 CPU's on same package. If you 2 programs that both want all CPU power one core has to offer, dual core CPU is running on it's limits and quad core CPU is probably faster. If you have 3 programs ... , quad core is much faster. Alternatively if you are using program that can use 2 cores or more, again quad core CPU is faster.

So it's basically about multitasking (many programs in use same time) or multi-threading (program uses more than 1 CPU) if quad core is better. I have 8 CPU cores btw.

#6 britechguy

britechguy

    Been there, done that, got the T-shirt


  • Moderator
  • 8,147 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Staunton, VA
  • Local time:08:54 PM

Posted 07 September 2017 - 04:49 PM

Drillingmachine,

 

           Yes, that is a very good and direct description of the mechanics of multitasking or multithreading, and that's really useful.

 

            It's still well-nigh impossible to say precisely how the speeds of finishing something (for the end user, anyway) will increase when moving up the "multi-core" scale.  It's neither linear nor exponential, but something in between.

 

            There's no doubt that things can be faster if they're designed to exploit the hardware, but so much extant stuff isn't that the whole thing is a muddle without specific examples and tests.  Let's not even get into how clock speed can influence all of this, too!


Brian  AKA  Bri the Tech Guy (website in my user profile) - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1803, Build 17134 

      Memory is a crazy woman that hoards rags and throws away food.

                    ~ Austin O'Malley

 

 

 

              

 


#7 MadmanRB

MadmanRB

    Spoon!!!!


  • Members
  • 3,073 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:No time for that when there is evil afoot!
  • Local time:08:54 PM

Posted 07 September 2017 - 05:20 PM

After reading all of this Im still left dubious. It seems it is all a big false advertisement and unnecessary. Left in what I had originally had in the "beyond my need to remember or even care about" category."

 

Well keep in mind that the main reason why there is so much conflict between information on how a core works and functions is because its a ever evolving aspect of computing.

Multi core isnt as complex as it sounds but at the same time its something that is changing as each iteration of core computing changes things up and dynamics are shifted.

A great example of this change can be found in AMD

For the last generation of AMD processors the die looked like this:

 

http://www.legitreviews.com/images/news/2011/bulldozer-die-diagram.jpg

 

While for the current iteration known as Zen (opr Ryzen) it looks like this:

http://cdn.overclock.net/e/ec/ecdb0378_die.jpeg

 

Then when you compare that to a intel die:

 

https://www.techpowerup.com/img/15-08-18/77a.jpg

 

Each one of these must look like strange alien technology from a far off world to you but for those of us who are tech savvy enough we can see what does what and how things interact with eachother.

To put this all into human terms that you may be able to understand think of your processor as a engine in your car.

And the engine you use is different then the one I have.

Each engine has similar features but are from different makers, I have a Chevy and you have a Ford.

At their base there is no real difference between them but how they are made can determine where we differ.

Your car may be able to give more horsepower but mine is better on fuel.

Or you may be able to transverse hills but mine may be better on the racetrack.

Not to mention you may have a pickup truck and I have a 4 door sedan.

One is not better then the other but one has some advantages that the other does not.

This is how a processor works, dual core processors are kind of like a sedan.

They are often times great with gas as in not needing as much power but don't perform well at large tasks such as being used to move large objects.

The quad core is almost like a pickup truck able to move far more, with maybe a little penalty on energy consumption.

Of course this depends on the processor, a dual core processor from 12 years ago was more like a 50's monster car like a Ford Mustang, great on speed but terrible at gas.

Now they are more like motorcycles, still fast but not nearly as hungry as their older counterparts.


You know you want me baby!

Proud Linux user and dual booter.

Proud Vivaldi user.

 

ljxaqg-6.png


#8 Just_One_Question

Just_One_Question

  • Members
  • 1,400 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bulgaria
  • Local time:03:54 AM

Posted 07 September 2017 - 06:36 PM

Ah, another member favouring automotive analogies as well. A man of culture. :lmao:

Xw71pRB_700wa_0.gif

 

BTW, OP, if you are interested, here's how different computers with ever-increasing processors compare to one another through the times. For example, the current iPhone 7+ has a quad-core CPU which is faster than the fastest computer on the planet 25 years ago. :)

l5suwdZ.jpg


Edited by Just_One_Question, 07 September 2017 - 06:37 PM.


#9 MadmanRB

MadmanRB

    Spoon!!!!


  • Members
  • 3,073 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:No time for that when there is evil afoot!
  • Local time:08:54 PM

Posted 07 September 2017 - 06:56 PM

Ah, another member favouring automotive analogies as well. A man of culture. :lmao:

Xw71pRB_700wa_0.gif

 

 

Indeed as a car is a very good comparison as its something pretty much anyone can relate to.

I could have also used airplanes, sailing vessels and yes even the human body.


You know you want me baby!

Proud Linux user and dual booter.

Proud Vivaldi user.

 

ljxaqg-6.png


#10 Threesom666

Threesom666
  • Topic Starter

  • Banned
  • 131 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:05:54 PM

Posted 10 September 2017 - 06:04 PM

Thanks I get it through the car analogies but after understanding it a bit better. It all seems all unnecessary and pointless. Its faster but not by ziillions faster. Maybe a few ticks. It consumes less energy but not going to save you hundreds on your phone bill.



#11 MadmanRB

MadmanRB

    Spoon!!!!


  • Members
  • 3,073 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:No time for that when there is evil afoot!
  • Local time:08:54 PM

Posted 10 September 2017 - 06:12 PM

Yeah vbut if you were to buy a new machine you may want to aim for quad core as opposed to dual core as dual cores are slowly being phased out


You know you want me baby!

Proud Linux user and dual booter.

Proud Vivaldi user.

 

ljxaqg-6.png


#12 Just_One_Question

Just_One_Question

  • Members
  • 1,400 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bulgaria
  • Local time:03:54 AM

Posted 10 September 2017 - 06:16 PM

Dude, both the computer industry and the automotive one, when stripped from hype, actually progress kinda slowly and in numerous small increments. You can see major improvements only if you don't pay attention to it for around 5-7 years and then check the new products. For example, I hadn't tried Android since version 2.0, which I thought was total rubbish, and half a year ago, 6 years later, I tried Android 6.0, and it was terrific! However, if you are too much into the industry and are checking it out every day, you will solely see mainly insignificant improvements. For example, tomorrow Apple is presenting its new iPhone and I can somewhat bet that whereas its going to be the fastest smartphone ever, it's not going to be that large of an improvement from the previous one. :)


Edited by Just_One_Question, 10 September 2017 - 06:16 PM.


#13 Threesom666

Threesom666
  • Topic Starter

  • Banned
  • 131 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:05:54 PM

Posted 10 September 2017 - 07:25 PM

Upon reading this and and my hardware problems. Im considering giving up techonology. Its a big waste of time, energy, and money. Just buy some basic crap and dont use it too much.

Spoon:

I have both a dual and quad. My dual feels faster. Why is it being phased out? because of money I pressume.

I dont think I'll ever buy another machine.

Started using Pcs since 2006 and have not been impressed by its improvements other than more junk, and more gadgets but mostly the same and of course not necessary in onces day life.


JOQ- I wouldve thought youd be bangging her. Why would your love life suck? Your a computer genuis. An automatic millionaire chick magnet.

Yea in small increments. I can see that. Thats only how I notice its upgrades. By 6-7 years maybe and only around ads superficially. Once I really get to know the differences am not that impressed. Especially for its high costs and quality. Usually having some bugs or tech issues.

I bet one of the major upgrades in the new iphone is its hard to believe battery issues. along with more processor, ram, and memory. maybe even in size and something that the past one version the consumers dont approve of like the mini-plug.



#14 MDD1963

MDD1963

  • Members
  • 699 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:09:54 AM

Posted 10 September 2017 - 07:38 PM

Newer dual cores can easily be and feel MUCH faster than older quad cores, depending on the workload, GPU, and storage peripherals, especially...

 

Some 4/6/8 core cpus were not really full cores anyway, but, sort of 'half-cores'....and performed as such.


Asus Z270A Prime/7700K/32 GB DDR4-3200/GTX1060


#15 MDD1963

MDD1963

  • Members
  • 699 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:09:54 AM

Posted 10 September 2017 - 07:40 PM

But you certainly can't simply say my 2 GHz dual core is twice as fast as a singe core, etc., nor is the 8 core at 4 GHz twice as fast as a quad core at 4 GHz....

 

Get a 6 core, you'll be set for 5-7 years....


Asus Z270A Prime/7700K/32 GB DDR4-3200/GTX1060





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users