4.0 GHz
- Thread starter thieflock
- Start date
What it means is having twin cores both running at 2ghz for multitasking capability. You don't add two cores to the total clock speed. What make things run faster is having two cores to handle different things like background services with the other working on the program or game you have running similar in that sense to what a second channel does with memory taking a load off of the primary.
Good Ol' Ramos
New Member
So "yes", it is like having 4GHz.
4ghz is even faster then the present Core 2 Extreme models out for actual clock speed. The item that helps is allowing multiple programs to be running at the same time where a single core model could easily lock. With Vista there's even more background activity with the added new features taking up more system memory. But it's geared for the newer cpus over the older types.
Actually, they claim it is 2ghz, but it should say differently when you check the my computer properties.
I have this Optiplex machine at work, using the AMD X2 and it says 991 mhz but supposed to be 2Ghz, so I think they already count both cores.
Anyway, it's not the same as having twice the speed, but it will make it faster.
I have this Optiplex machine at work, using the AMD X2 and it says 991 mhz but supposed to be 2Ghz, so I think they already count both cores.
Anyway, it's not the same as having twice the speed, but it will make it faster.
Jet
VIP Member
The actual running speed is 2Ghz, but to save power, it clocks the core speed down when it isn't being used much.
The newer models are designed more towards saving on power and drawing less. What makes programs seem to run faster and better is having more cpu time available over a single core model. That's where you can see bottlenecks when trying to have too much running at once.
The reference to dual channel boards over the older single channel follows that line where the secondary channel accepts the background services and less demanding apps like firewalls when you have a primary app running. The background services and lesser apps are then in theory pressed to work through the second memory channel. Likewise the second core kicks in when the demand on cpu reaches a certain point.
The reference to dual channel boards over the older single channel follows that line where the secondary channel accepts the background services and less demanding apps like firewalls when you have a primary app running. The background services and lesser apps are then in theory pressed to work through the second memory channel. Likewise the second core kicks in when the demand on cpu reaches a certain point.
Geoff
VIP Member
No!
A dual-core processor running at 2Ghz does not equal 4Ghz, nor does it perform like a 4Ghz processor.
When you are running a single app, it only uses one core, it does not split the load between the cores. If that was the case, then yes it would seem like 4Ghz.
As others have said, it clocks down to save power and produce less heat. They dont make X2's that run at 1Ghz.
Wrong, you dont have one type of application going to one channel and another going to the second channel. (All) data is (split) between the channels. All dual channel does is the memory controller treats both sticks of ram as one and splits the data between them and can read and write to both at the same time. You can have one application or five open and the data for each is split to both sticks. It (doesnt) use one channel for one application and another uses the 2nd channel.
BUNK! While one channel is reading and writing data through the memory controller the other is reseting itself. When the primary channel is full the secondary is then seen taking up the slack.
The terminology "Dual-Channel DDR" is being misused by some in the Memory industry, which can mislead the Consumer. The fact is there's no such thing as Dual-Channel DDR Memory. There are, however, Dual-Channel Platforms. [Memory Controller]
When properly used, the term "Dual Channel" refers to the DDR chipset on certain Motherboards designed with Two Memory Channels instead of One. The Two Channels handle Memory-processing more efficiently by utilizing the theoretical Bandwidth of the Two Modules, thus reducing System Latencies, the Timing Delays that inherently occur with One Memory Module.
For example, One Controller reads and writes data while the Second Controller prepares for the next access, hence, eliminating the reset and setup delays that occur before One Memory Module can begin the read/write process all over again. Think of it like two relay runners.
The first runner runs one leg while the second runner sets up and prepares to receive the baton smoothly and carry on the task at hand without delay. While performance gains from Dual-Channel Chipsets aren't huge, they can increase Bandwidth by as much as 10 percent. http://www.buildorbuy.org/dualchannelddr.html
Thats talking about what the memory controller itself does, of course each channel read and writes independent, they still split the data to both memory (sticks). You have what the controller does and how its wrote the to memory mixed up.
Last edited:
You are on what the secondary channel on the board itself does over double data rate memory. With the board set in dual channel mode Windows and the primary app/game running will grab the primary while the secondary then sees other background services and apps pushed onto the secondary to prevent bottlenecks. This is one main reason for the slight performance increase seen there over the older single channel boards.
Whatever
They operate at completely different levels. Windows cannot say on which channel to fetch data. Even if it could, it couldn't, because memory addresses are bounced between channels. So to read a certain amount of contingous memory, both channels must be used
Geoff
VIP Member
Yes thats true in some apps, which will get the work done in up to half the time. However you still cant multiply the speed times the number of cores to get an "effective" rating.