RE: Dual core, Quad core??
June 3, 2009 at 4:56 am
(This post was last modified: June 3, 2009 at 5:09 am by moleque.)
(May 6, 2009 at 3:35 am)Darwinian Wrote: At the moment I have a Dual Core 2.7 mhz PC. After my daughters PC went bang I had a look on the net for a new one.
What slightly puzzled me was the description of a Quad Core PC. It stated that it had a speed of 2.2 mhz.
Now, the question is, is my Dual core 2.7 faster than the Quad core 2.2? And if so, why bother with a Quad?
The amount of cores within each processing unit isn't utilized much by Windows. If you were doing compiling or a lot of rendering with SMP support, you may need such.
AMD first released the 64bit extension. You may need to read up on cpuflags.
8086 processors. I have an AMD 64 bit processor in this box I am using right now. No problem whatsoever.
There is an Intel processor in the laptop and another in the other computer.
Again, no problem.
AMD single core and I can run multiple instances of VMs on it, layered to three levels.
Intel single core and I can do 3d rendering even though the system lags at times.
True speed has to do with the internal clock rate. Try looking at a SPARC or a PPC for a realistic view.
386? 486? DX? SX? Someone forgot about the f00f bug.
Speed also has to do with: services, graphics, applications, OS design, kernel design, kernel size, file system design, hardware tuning, etc.
I can make a 386DX with 128M RAM run fast without any problem and set it up for home use.
I can also make a workable system with X, browser, and basic services run with 48M ram and no problem.
Having multiple open applications is wasting RAM and ruining hard drive performance. Minimalize your use and the programs will be more efficient.
