Jump to content
Posted 09 April 2007 - 10:20 PM
Posted 10 April 2007 - 02:07 AM
Posted 10 April 2007 - 09:35 AM
Posted 10 April 2007 - 10:33 AM
Posted 10 April 2007 - 01:03 PM
You still haven't got clockspeed down to pat.
Clockspeed means the same for single-cores as it does for dual-cores. The difference is that a dual-core can do two things at once. A multi-threaded program (on that can make use of a dual-core) splits the job it is doing into several tasks that can be done in parallel, and so can make use of both cores.
You cannot compare the clockspeed of different architectures. It is pointless. Think of the clockspeed as the rpm of a car. You can't tell how fast a car is traveling by the rpm alone, but if you know the gear, the gear ratio, the axle ratio and the tire size you can figure out how fast the car is traveling. If you got two identical cars traveling in the same gear, you know that the one with the higher rpm is traveling faster. The same goes for processors: With two otherwise identical processors, the one with a higher clockspeed is faster.
Dual-cores (and quad-cores and so on) are the future. We've hit pretty much a clockspeed wall, meaning that you can't increasing clockspeed to make processors faster. Instead they are adding more cores. With improved programming tools and compilers, soon all programs will be multi-threaded.
All that said, a FX-60 is a dual-core and you can't stick one in a laptop due to thermal and power considerations.
Posted 10 April 2007 - 04:13 PM
Posted 10 April 2007 - 04:27 PM
Posted 06 January 2009 - 08:23 PM
Posted 06 January 2009 - 08:40 PM
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users