• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

3ghz quad core is 12Ghz in theory?

shaffaaf27 said:
in the end you end up with the same amount of alcohol in your body no?
Click to expand...

Not neccessarily, no. Dunno about you, but for me a single shot of 80% whisky is pretty likely to come straight back out (followed by dinner) :). In a similar way, trying to run a single core at 12MHz, or a suped up Veyron at 1000mph is also likely to result in major failure :)
 
I stand by my simple car analogy for the (as I stated) technically challenged - I doubt someone who thinks they have a 12GHz quad is going to be able to take in the complexities of parallel processing and threads.

Years ago when I was peddling computers the world was less IT literate and I built up a whole story relating general computing concepts to road transport, with computers as cars and processors as the engines (sticking a 3.5 litre V8 into a mini is possible but not cost effective when any required upgrading transmission/wheels/tyres are costed in). In the end there were too many holes in the analogy so I stopped using it, though some people did find it helpful to understand general computer principles.

Needless to say I did'nt sell a lot. :D
 
I always liked the car analogy anyway, although I always compared a bunch of cars, and a bus.

Sometimes you get a nutter on the bus, and nobody will sit next to them, and someone else is hogging 2 seats etc, so that some seats are always wasted in the bus. With the cars, you have better utililization, but you need more cars to get the job done.
 
I dislike the add's on ebay that quote quads as 12ghz or dual cores as 6 ghz,it just fooling the consumer.

Techinically it is the same as if u had 1 core running at 12ghz BUT only very few programs can use the threaded resources effenciantly,even then the best only get around 90% of the threaded performance.

However the future is bright as AMD's upcoming new cpu's will be reversed threaded which mean's they can pass 1 thread in two core's,so then a dual 3ghz core would really be a 6ghz single core so to speak.

Well that is the rumour but if AMD do pull it off then i think that will be a huge benfit to developer's and consumer's.I mean for example most games get a 50% improvement with a dual core over a single core,but having it threaded as 1 code in the two cores i think we will see near 90% improvement this way.
 
Adding CPU cores increases the MIPS (Million Instructions Per Second) a CPU can process. It does not increase the frequency it runs at.
 
The friend is right so long as each core is perfectly timed and supplied with data as it needs it.

Almost never would that occur but Intel would sure like it to be true



For analogy I will go with a V12 Ferrari for the 12ghz computer vs a 3 cylinder 1 litre diesel for the 1ghz 1 core computer

One does 60mph in 3 seconds and the other takes 30 seconds, the traffic light is red for 3 minutes and they both have to wait :p
Driving through town in a variety of traffic, they are both the same speed most of the time.

Alas not many times in life do we get an empty autobahn to play with
 
Last edited:
damn this thread is really confusing me.
i always thought a quad core @ 3.0GHz = 12 GHz of processing power...
how the **** is that not right?


on a seperate note, what would you rather have for gaming:
a) a Q6600 @ 2.4GHz
b) a Q6600 @ 3.0GHz
c) an i3 @ 4.0GHz

??
 
^ I3 at 4ghz, if they're new purchases. If you already have a Q6600 I wouldnt upgrade to an I3

As for the reasoning, I like the explanation at the beginning of the thread.

4 cars going 120mph side by side, That doesnt mean they're travelling at 480mph, But it does mean if you have passengers in each car they can all arrive at the same time at the destination.

And only with multicore optimized programming.

Essentially with unoptimized software, You'd have the 4 cars at the starting line, but only 1 car at a time could make the journey
 
Last edited:
cjph said:
When talking to the technically challenged I like to use the example of cars - does owning four, four seater saloon cars each capable of 100mph mean you can drive at 400mph ?

But having four cars will mean transporting twelve people may be a lot easier (drivers permitting, if you excuse the pun) than with a 400mph supercar.

cjph
Click to expand...

Love this explanation!!
And the phrase "technically challenged"

Something about this thread just reminds me of the Android vs Iphone 4 clip, "I want the one with the more GHZs"
 
wannabedamned said:
^ I3 at 4ghz, if they're new purchases. If you already have a Q6600 I wouldnt upgrade to an I3
Click to expand...

well bah i upgraded to the i3 cos i couldnt get the q6600 stable @ 3.2 GHz any more, and it sucked at 2.4 in games (motherboard NB overheating or something). sold on the old components for about the same price as the new ones so essentially only had to pay for the gfx card, got a 1024MB 460 for £150. a fast clocked dual core will probably be better for the games that i play than a quad. im running @ 4.1 ghz atm, and temps are still under 60 degrees C @ full load, so a bit of room left for improvement.
 
daz said:
I wish people would stop with the poorly formed analogies, there's no need.
Click to expand...

They're fine for people who can't grasp the concept, or struggle to understand fully. Even the best of analogies can have holes picked into it by someone with knowledge of the field the analogy is from.
 
The multiplication factor for quad core processors is 2.25

So

a 2.6 ghz quad is equivalent to a single core 5.9ghz
a 3.0 ghz quad is equivalent to a single core 6.7ghz
a 3.2 ghz quad is equivalent to a single core 7.2ghz

etc blah

Below from Can I run It MW2

148818_458272726493_659761493_5736755_4606932_n.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom