Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 5:04 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Dual core, Quad core??
#1
Dual core, Quad core??
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?
[Image: cinjin_banner_border.jpg]
Reply
#2
RE: Dual core, Quad core??
(May 6, 2009 at 3:35 am)Darwinian Wrote: 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?

I have to concede I get very confused by this as well.

According to CPU performance charts (here's the Passmark one) dual core tends to be much less powerful than core 2 duo (dual core is not the same as core 2 duo) and quad core (I think they call it core 2 quad) is faster still. The problem with quad core is that there's nothing much that uses it ... as I understand it, if you use it with 32 bit Windows it won't even see 2 of the cores so that wastes your money and even if it did there are few applications that are quad core aware.

The advice I usually get is buy dual core until the OS landscape changes ... alternatively you can use Linux which I believe is fully able to use those kind of CPUs but Adrian and a couple of others would be better advisers on that than me.

Kyu
Angry Atheism
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings!
Come over to the dark side, we have cookies!

Kyuuketsuki, AngryAtheism Owner & Administrator
Reply
#3
RE: Dual core, Quad core??
Thanks for that.. Glad I'm not the only one who gets confused Dodgy
[Image: cinjin_banner_border.jpg]
Reply
#4
RE: Dual core, Quad core??
(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?
As far as I am aware (from my university courses and research online) the matter is simple multiplication. The "2.7 MHz" value is for one core. Ergo a Dual Core 2.7 MHz has two cores of 2.7 MHz each, and the Quad Core 2.2 MHz has 4 cores of 2.2 MHz each. Of course this doesn't count software restrictions, but the technical specs should be there.

Now a 2.7 dual core might actually work out faster than a Quad 2.2 since the actual singles cores are faster. If you have a system that exploits the multiple cores, then the quad will be faster, but if you don't then the dual will probably be the faster system.

I found an interesting Yahoo Answers article that explains things a bit better: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...506AAjx70m

If you are going for a gaming system or using Windows 32bit then get the Dual core since it has faster individual processors, although more games are apparently being made for quad cores. If you are using Linux, then get the quad.
Reply
#5
RE: Dual core, Quad core??
Adrian ... it's not as simple as that because dual core is an older technology than core 2 duo and likewise quad technology is a bit more modern than duel core so whilst raw speed may be faster in a dual core, it cannot do anything approaching the same kind of work that a core 2 duo can.

I just wish that Intel would come up with a sensible fucking naming system like AMD (spit!) did.

Kyu
Angry Atheism
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings!
Come over to the dark side, we have cookies!

Kyuuketsuki, AngryAtheism Owner & Administrator
Reply
#6
RE: Dual core, Quad core??
It's the DX and SX naming convention misunderstandings all over again.

on the 386 DX meant 32bit cpu on 32bit motherboard and SX 32bit CPU on a 16bit motherboard, on the 486 DX meant internal numercial co-processor enabled and SX internal co-processor disabled.

Now you have dual cores and Core 2 Duals, terrific.
Best regards,
Leo van Miert
Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you
Pastafarian
Reply
#7
RE: Dual core, Quad core??
(May 6, 2009 at 5:45 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Adrian ... it's not as simple as that because dual core is an older technology than core 2 duo
Yeah I know that. Sorry, when I say "dual core" I'm not talking about the brand name, I'm talking about a system that has 2 cores, likewise with quad core, a system that has 4 cores.

Obviously core 2 duo is a type of dual core system, but what I think Darwinian was confused about was the fact that a "dual core" system had specs of 2.7 MHz and a "quad core" system had specs of 2.2 MHz. The MHz value is a reference to one of the cores in the system.

It becomes even more confusing when Intel have a "Core 2" range that includes quad cores! Honestly, whose idea was it to name the product "Core 2 Quad"!?!?
Reply
#8
RE: Dual core, Quad core??
@Kyu

I have a Dell Inspiron 530S.

The processor is a 2.336 Ghz,Intel core 2 duo. I have 3 GB RAM

I didn't understand that core2 isn't the same as dual core.

What's the difference between a core 2 duo and a single core processor the same size?

Comparing with my old Pentium 3 with a slightly bigger, single core processor and 750 meg of RAM it doesn't seem any faster. BUT I do seem to be able to have more open applications without noticeable loss of performance..
Reply
#9
RE: Dual core, Quad core??
(May 6, 2009 at 8:18 pm)padraic Wrote: What's the difference between a core 2 duo and a single core processor the same size?

I don't know what the technical differences are ... I lost the plot with Intel cpu's a while back. All I know is that Intel CPU's work fine, AMD suck (I always get problems with them) and I just killed my DELL Server (which was an Intel Xeon) Sad

(May 6, 2009 at 8:18 pm)padraic Wrote: Comparing with my old Pentium 3 with a slightly bigger, single core processor and 750 meg of RAM it doesn't seem any faster. BUT I do seem to be able to have more open applications without noticeable loss of performance..

The chart link I posted to Darwinian is the only clue I have to performance which kinda falls in line with what you're saying.

Kyu
Angry Atheism
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings!
Come over to the dark side, we have cookies!

Kyuuketsuki, AngryAtheism Owner & Administrator
Reply
#10
RE: Dual core, Quad core??
Thanks Kyu
Reply





Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)