-
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.
Pentium D Dual core :S
- Thread starter pc-modd
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,160
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
who's listing it like that? they need a slap lol
yes, you are right
yes, you are right
There are 2 cores each running at 2.8ghz, so technically 5.6 ghz is correct however nothing will ever be 100% efficient using multiple cores.
By the way get a core 2 duo if your board supports it, they are far faster, use less power and run cooler.
Admittedly when I sold my 805 I did mention I clocked it to 3.8ghz, a total of 7.6ghz omgwtf!!!11 etc. but I also mentioned you would need multi core applications to get the most from it.
By the way get a core 2 duo if your board supports it, they are far faster, use less power and run cooler.
Admittedly when I sold my 805 I did mention I clocked it to 3.8ghz, a total of 7.6ghz omgwtf!!!11 etc. but I also mentioned you would need multi core applications to get the most from it.
Adding up the Mhz of the cores is just plain wrong. Each core is running at 2.8Ghz not 5.6. Single threaded applications will only work at the same speed as a single core 2.8Ghz cpu. Even a virtually perfectly optimized application wont ever be 100% faster on a dual core than a single core system.
Multicore processors are like big multilane motorways, you can still only drive at 70mph in any lane, but you can get more people travelling at any given time.
Or a single core CPU is like a car, can carry a few people, while a multicore cpu is like a bus, it carries a large number of people. But both drive at (approximatly) the same speed. Just the bus gets more done in parallel.
Multicore processors are like big multilane motorways, you can still only drive at 70mph in any lane, but you can get more people travelling at any given time.
Or a single core CPU is like a car, can carry a few people, while a multicore cpu is like a bus, it carries a large number of people. But both drive at (approximatly) the same speed. Just the bus gets more done in parallel.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 May 2006
- Posts
- 5,786
Just curious, but would a single core CPU running at 2*x ghz always be better than the equivalent dual core CPU running at x ghz?
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 May 2006
- Posts
- 5,786
FirebarUK said:
Yeah, I'm talking about the same architecture and cache specs, e.g. A64 San Diego and A64 X2 Toledo.
FirebarUK said:How do you work that out? Technically thats totally incorrect!
5.6 ghz of CPU power, if the programming was 100% efficient it would be twice as fast as a 2.8ghz pentium 4. Tell me, what is 2.8 x 2?
titaniumx3 said:
Running at the same GHZ the dual core will generally be very slightly faster in single core apps as it will run the background programs on one CPU and has one core completely free to carry out the task with high priority.
I still think your statement was technically incorrect tho 
You can't go around adding up core clocks like that and justifying it. Its just plain misleading, especially to the poor guy who bought your chip!
No need to get all girlie on me.
Providing the OS can make decent work of spreading load across the two cores, i.e; moving EVERYTHING it does onto one.
Its safe to say it would always be faster unless an application was specifically threaded to perfection - which is unrealistic and will never happen what with the complexity of the types of programs we're talking about. As a result a single core CPU at such a high frequency would chew through stuff very nicely anyhow
You can't go around adding up core clocks like that and justifying it. Its just plain misleading, especially to the poor guy who bought your chip!
No need to get all girlie on me.
Providing the OS can make decent work of spreading load across the two cores, i.e; moving EVERYTHING it does onto one.
Its safe to say it would always be faster unless an application was specifically threaded to perfection - which is unrealistic and will never happen what with the complexity of the types of programs we're talking about. As a result a single core CPU at such a high frequency would chew through stuff very nicely anyhow
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,160
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
Raikiri said:
no you cant work it out like that. if programming was 100% efficiant the cpu's still wouldnt be.