• 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.

Dual Core Questions

Associate
Joined
18 Jun 2003
Posts
272
Location
Alford, Lincs
Hi all

About to buy a new PC. A little confused about dual core processors.

So I buy a dual core 1.8 processors. I can run 2 tasks both at 1.8ghz speed, however if I run 1 task do I get 3.6ghz??

Some explanation would be appreciated.

Thanks
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Mar 2007
Posts
9,917
Location
Belfast
It doesn't work like that unfortunately :p . Say if you run Firefox and then run Photoshop, usually one cpu is dedicated to each program so 1.8ghz to Firefox and 1.8ghz to Photoshop. That is how i think it works. Dual Core optimized games dedicated certain processes like physics to certain cpus.
 
Soldato
Joined
3 Jan 2006
Posts
5,009
Both cores will run at 1.8Ghz regardless. So the performance depends on how well the applications can utilise dual core - running a pure single thread application on a dual core CPU will have the similar performance of a single core 1.8Ghz CPU, providing that both have the same architecture.
 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
2 Jan 2004
Posts
942
Do you encode video? encdoing video is very cpu intensive, encoding jobs depending on resolution and video length can take a fair chunk of cpu time.
Because of the dual core cpu the user can know dedicate one cpu to encoding and use the other cpu to do other work. In this scenario you would be fully utilizing 1.8Ghz core and have the other 1.8Ghz at your command, this would be a long and arduos task on a single core computer.
If you assign both cores to the encoding job you will get very close to full 3.6Ghz speed utilization as lots of video encoding software loves dual core/multi core setups i.e. CCe :)
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
5 Jan 2003
Posts
5,001
Location
West Midlands
Dont forget though, that a 1.83Ghz Core 2 Duo processor is a lot faster than a Pentium IV at the same clock speed. So much so, that a base model 1.83Ghz C2D will outperform a 3.7Ghz P4 in many benchmarks.

And thats just based on single core performance.
 
Soldato
Joined
11 Sep 2003
Posts
14,716
Location
London
denz1968 said:
So 1 task running would still be running at 1.8ghz, and not 3.6ghz
Yes kinda, however if the software you are using is multithreaded then it will almost be like it is running at 3.6GHz (well more like 3.2GHz as you don't get 100% speed up from the extra cores).
 
Soldato
Joined
5 Jan 2003
Posts
5,001
Location
West Midlands
Big.Wayne said:
Yes kinda, however if the software you are using is multithreaded then it will almost be like it is running at 3.6GHz (well more like 3.2GHz as you don't get 100% speed up from the extra cores).

Depends on the application, number crunching applications, (folding/seti whatever), can simply be run twice, once on each core. This will run pretty much 100% efficiently, as each application never needs to wait for results from the other. So gains are very close to 100%.

However if a multithreaded application ever needs the results from 1 thread to process another, then the second thread will be stalled until the results are ready. So a 'badly' written multithreaded application will offer very little gain over a singlethreaded application.

However its still wrong to say the chip performs like a 3.6Ghz. If you run a single loop of code, a true 3.6 would complete it faster every time. What you have is a pair of 1.8ghz processors, and thats the speed they run at.

To make an analogy, If a bus with 40 seats, travels at 40mph, it can get 40 people 80 miles in 2 hours. A car with 4 seats travelling the same road at 80mph gets 4 people there in an hour. The bus gets a lot more work done overall, but the 4 people in the car get there in half the time.

Its generally the same with multicore processors. The higher speed single core chips 'may' get the first results out quicker, but once you are talking 10, 100 or 1000 results, then the multicores catch up (or even overtake).

Multicores also add new possibilities, as already mentioned a game might use core 1 to work in tandam with the graphics card to provide a games visual environment, but it can run a separate physics thread on the second core to make the games 'laws of physics' more lifelike. Add a Quadcore, and suddenly you find a game can dedicate another thread to increase artificial intelligence of all the monsters/npc's in the game, even a thread to process lifelike 3 dimensional 'dolby digital' audio in real time. Multicore use is only limited by the programmers imagination.
 
Soldato
Joined
11 Sep 2003
Posts
14,716
Location
London
you know what I mean :)

In short anything to do with PC hardware that allows you to double-up, i.e two x hard disks (Raid-0), two x graphics cards (SLI/Crossfire) Two x memory (Dual Channel) never offer two x performance, the closest would probably be a dual-core processor running some 'well' coded software.
 
Associate
Joined
28 Feb 2007
Posts
1,681
Location
York
denz1968 said:
Hi all

About to buy a new PC. A little confused about dual core processors.

So I buy a dual core 1.8 processors. I can run 2 tasks both at 1.8ghz speed, however if I run 1 task do I get 3.6ghz??

Some explanation would be appreciated.

Thanks

Back in the days of single core if I ran virus scan and tried to do anythig else it would be very slow and a right pain.

With dual core I can run virus scan, rip a cd whilst playing it download stuff and run say a benchmarking program like Orthos and still surf the web nicely.

It splits the loads, nothing really runs faster as such but its like it's got more bandwidth.

Dual core rules, quad core must be awsome
 
Back
Top Bottom