dual core vs single core

Generally yes.

Clock speeds may be faster, but two cores will be faster than one.

Imagine you have 10 gallons of water.

You need to get that water into small containers.

All you have is one hose and a funnel.

Now imagine you had two slightly smaller hoses and funnels.

Two cores will potentially move more data, even though at a slightly
slower rate than a single core.
 
aviation_man said:
Very nice analogy :D
Click to expand...

Additionally - most people do some sort of Multi-tasking with their PC's.

Whether it be Virus scan and surfing the web

OR

Listening to Music / Online Radio while using another application

OR

any other combination you could think of. If one Core is dedicated to 1 application - you can freely work on the other core with your other application - and not worry about overworking a single core - that ultimately freezes up your PC.

Using the hose example - you have 2 jugs of water - funneling into 1 hose - at a Y connection - OR - having 2 jugs of water each with their own hoses :D
 
Bodaggit23 said:
Generally yes.

Clock speeds may be faster, but two cores will be faster than one.

Imagine you have 10 gallons of water.

You need to get that water into small containers.

All you have is one hose and a funnel.

Now imagine you had two slightly smaller hoses and funnels.

Two cores will potentially move more data, even though at a slightly
slower rate than a single core.
Click to expand...

Great way of explaining :D:good:
 
dont forget the weight of the water and the act of it being forced through the two smaller hoses, you'd get more of a jet stream out of the two separate smaller hoses... showing the dual-cores ability to push smaller data faster :

this hose deal is fun.
and overclocking would be like getting a vaccuum seal on the jugs and finding a piston to push the water through the same hoses faster :)

this is just awesome, lets keep it going
 
I won't be going along with you guys... I am too bad at it.

BUT! If your software doesn't support Dual core, well... bad luck ^_^.
 
I understand now :D is there a point, like when a single core ???GHz runs better than a dual core ???GHz? or would the more cores you have always make it better no matter what GHz it ran at?

ooo one more question. when you have any processor with more than one like a 3GHz quad core for example. are there 4 processors each running at 3GHz?
 
Last edited:
Magicalpops said:
I understand now :D is there a point, like when a single core ???GHz runs better than a dual core ???GHz? or would the more cores you have always make it better no matter what GHz it ran at?

ooo one more question. when you have any processor with more than one like a 3GHz quad core for example. are there 4 processors each running at 3GHz?
Click to expand...


Well a 3ghz single core will be slower then 2ghz dual-core....you can't compare the ghz between the two.

The dual-core is superior in technology which makes it faster even if you compare 1 core vs 1 core. Things like L2 and L3 cache also come into play here making it better then single-cores.


Also yes my quad runs 4 cores @ 3.2ghz each....you don't add it and say "16.8ghz" you will get laughed at :P
 
It is difficult to compare many processors by simply comparing clock speeds. Processors with newer technology can perform more calculations per clock cycle than an older central processing units.

For example look at an Intel Core 2 Duo E7200 (2.53 gigahertz) Processor versus an Intel Pentium D Processor 960 (3.6 gigahertz) processor. The E7200 is a faster processor than the Pentium D 960.
 
I would take a dual core 2 ghz over a single core 3 ghz, but not a quad core 2 ghz over a dual core 3 ghz. I don't do much heavy mutlitasking so I'm more attracted to the faster clocked 2 cores. That will probably change within a year or so though.
 
Yes. Because it's a dual core. It normally beats a single core. Even though it is 3ghz it will handle much better
 
On my old setup I tried to stick in a single core athlon 64 I have....the 1640 LE, which is 2.6ghz and 1mb of L2 cache. I overclocked it to 3.0ghz, and played Call of Duty, got some bad lag while playing. Then I stuck in a 4600+ dual core, which is 2.2ghz and 2x512kb of L2 cache, so same amount of cache and 800 less mhz, played the game flawless.
 
Zangetsu said:
I won't be going along with you guys... I am too bad at it.

BUT! If your software doesn't support Dual core, well... bad luck ^_^.
Click to expand...

This isn't necessarily true, though, is it? Software doesn't have to be designed to take advantage of two or more cores in order for you to see an improvement in performance. It could simply be, like the two hoses, that each core is running separate processes.
 
JohnJSal said:
This isn't necessarily true, though, is it? Software doesn't have to be designed to take advantage of two or more cores in order for you to see an improvement in performance. It could simply be, like the two hoses, that each core is running separate processes.
Click to expand...

I believe it is from the things I have read. Certain software can only use how many cores it was designed for but an update can always fix that. I think games are the same way. I'm not 100% sure on this but from what I understand that's the way it works.
 
It's hard to tell. Depending on the processor. But normally a Dual Core is quicker because it is split into two and it can handle more. (Normally)
 
Most probably already know this but I will state it anyway. Processors that are more recent can perform more calculations per clock cycle than older processors.

For example look at an Intel Core 2 Duo E7200 (2.53 gigahertz) Processor versus an Intel Pentium D Processor 960 (3.6 gigahertz) processor. The E7200 is a better processor than the Pentium D 960. It will very likely run almost all software better than a Pentium D 960.

Even if a program is only designed to run off a single-core processor the more modern dual-core would very likely run it more efficiently. This is because a single core of the dual core processor is more efficient at running software than an older single core processor.
 
2048Megabytes said:
Most probably already know this but I will state it anyway. Processors that are more recent can perform more calculations per clock cycle than older processors.

For example look at an Intel Core 2 Duo E7200 (2.53 gigahertz) Processor versus an Intel Pentium D Processor 960 (3.6 gigahertz) processor. The E7200 is a better processor than the Pentium D 960. It will very likely run almost all software better than a Pentium D 960.

Even if a program is only designed to run off a single-core processor the more modern dual-core would very likely run it more efficiently. This is because a single core of the dual core processor is more efficient at running software than an older single core processor.
Click to expand...

Great way to explain it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top