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 Core Cpu's Vs Single Core


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 cowsgonemadd3

cowsgonemadd3

    Feed me some spyware!


  • Banned
  • 4,557 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:03:03 AM

Posted 09 April 2007 - 10:20 PM

Correct me if I am wrong.

Clock speed meant a lot with single cores.

The Amd 3200 just about 2? years ago was a big boy because its bandwidth tests were above intels chips running at 3.2 even though it only ran at 2.0.

Dual cores the clock speed isnt the only good thing.

They can combine clock speeds say a 1.6ghz x2 from AMD or INTEL would be 3.2.

BUT only certain programs can use both cores right?

And MOST programs people use CANT use dual cores right?

Is the dual core thing sorta like the 64bit hype a couple of years ago?

For instance if a program cant use both cores it only gets one. So then a faster single core can win in speed.

Say like a 1.6ghz core duo vs a Fx 60 from AMD.

The FX 60 wasnt it like the biggest single core made? That thing was like over 2000 bucks a year ago wasnt it?

What can use dual cores and what cant?

My friend got a new laptop. Just like mine but the NEW model with a Intel core duo with 1.6ghz.

I have the AMD 3200. From my perspective mine would be faster in tasks that only can use single cores.

I just wonder about updating my laptop to a FX 60 or getting a new laptop with a dual core.

My bios can only handle single cores.

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 Mr Alpha

Mr Alpha

  • Members
  • 1,875 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Finland
  • Local time:10:03 AM

Posted 10 April 2007 - 02:07 AM

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.
"Anyone who cannot form a community with others, or who does not need to because he is self-sufficient [...] is either a beast or a god." Aristotle
Intel Core 2 Quad | XFX 780i SLI | 8GB Corsair | Gigabyte GeForce 8800GTX | Auzentech X-Fi Prelude| Logitech G15 | Logitech MX Revolution | LG Flatron L2000C | Logitech Z-5500 Digital

#3 cowsgonemadd3

cowsgonemadd3

    Feed me some spyware!

  • Topic Starter

  • Banned
  • 4,557 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:03:03 AM

Posted 10 April 2007 - 09:35 AM

So basically your saying that my single core would be faster in "todays" single core programs because of the higher clock speed.

So upgrading to a 1.6ghz dual core would actually slow me down.

#4 Mr Alpha

Mr Alpha

  • Members
  • 1,875 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Finland
  • Local time:10:03 AM

Posted 10 April 2007 - 10:33 AM

No, the single-cores don't have higher clockspeeds. The point of making dual-cores is that they can't increase the clockspeed so they add more cores at the same clockspeed. The dual-cores are just as fast as single-cores in single-threaded situations, but can be almost twice as fast in multi-threaded situations.
"Anyone who cannot form a community with others, or who does not need to because he is self-sufficient [...] is either a beast or a god." Aristotle
Intel Core 2 Quad | XFX 780i SLI | 8GB Corsair | Gigabyte GeForce 8800GTX | Auzentech X-Fi Prelude| Logitech G15 | Logitech MX Revolution | LG Flatron L2000C | Logitech Z-5500 Digital

#5 newbie in hawaii

newbie in hawaii

  • Members
  • 122 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Location:Honolulu, Hawaii
  • Local time:09:03 PM

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.


:thumbsup:
Excellent post Mr Alpha, finally an analogy on clockspeed that I can understand!
"Ua mau ke ola o ke kai"

#6 cowsgonemadd3

cowsgonemadd3

    Feed me some spyware!

  • Topic Starter

  • Banned
  • 4,557 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:03:03 AM

Posted 10 April 2007 - 04:13 PM

"The dual-cores are just as fast as single-cores in single-threaded situations, but can be almost twice as fast in multi-threaded situations."

Even if it has a lower clock speed on the dual?

#7 Mr Alpha

Mr Alpha

  • Members
  • 1,875 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Finland
  • Local time:10:03 AM

Posted 10 April 2007 - 04:27 PM

No, not if the clockspeed is lower. Provided, of course, that all else is the same.
"Anyone who cannot form a community with others, or who does not need to because he is self-sufficient [...] is either a beast or a god." Aristotle
Intel Core 2 Quad | XFX 780i SLI | 8GB Corsair | Gigabyte GeForce 8800GTX | Auzentech X-Fi Prelude| Logitech G15 | Logitech MX Revolution | LG Flatron L2000C | Logitech Z-5500 Digital

#8 Duah

Duah

  • Members
  • 5 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:02:03 AM

Posted 06 January 2009 - 08:23 PM

So I have a 2004 Dell with a 2.8 ghz 400mhz fsb Intel Celeron processor with 1 gb of ram, I just purchased a new comp with a 2.2ghz E2200 Intel Conroe Dual Core 800mhz fsb with 4 gb of ram. So my old comp would run single threaded programs faster than my new one? I know enough just to get me by with comps so bare with me.

#9 ktseymour

ktseymour

  • Members
  • 19 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:02:03 AM

Posted 06 January 2009 - 08:40 PM

Ooohh-man did you open a can of worms. I'd suggest a trip down Wiki lane.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users