Dual Core Dilemma in notebooks

[moldboy 0]

I have been looking at notebook computers, and have noticed that appears to be the latest in power boosting, the dual core. Now I was wondering a few things about a dual core.Firstly, If the description says 1.67 gHz dual core, is that the equivalent of having two 1.67 ghz processors, or two 800ish mHz processors?Secondly, If I had the choice of getting a note book with a 2.2 gHz processor, or a 2 gHz dual core processor, all other specs are the same, which would be the better deal?And lastly, for now, I understand that WinXP Pro is required when you have two processors, it this true?, and does it apply to dual core processors as well?

[Inspiron 0]

I've read a few articles from the google search. From what I understood from those articles, the speed of dual-core processors does not mean the sum of both processors, basically because there isn't two processors in it. Actually, there's only 1 processor which is able to handle multiple tasks in a single time slot. It simulates 2 processors in it. What is actually happening in it is that the task is splitted into multiple thread pipelines such that more jobs can be processed instead of having 1 pipeline in a single core processor. Tasks will have to wait for the one before to be completed before it gets processed. Hence single core processors takes longer time to process data.

 

It's like a human being having 1 brain, but now both left and right brains are working together simultaneously. Hence ultimately, there's only 1 brain. In dual-core processor, its just only 1 processor.

 

I might be wrong as I'm still new to multicore processing.

 

You may like to refer to these articles that I've read.

http://icrontic.com/article/dual_core

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/homepage.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicore

[fffanatics 0]

I am pretty sure you are right about the way a dual core processor works and that the speed given is roughly the total speed of the processors when they are run together or by themselves since it shouldnt make much of a difference. To answer moldboy's question about whether to get a 2.2 or 2 ghz processor it is up to you. It shouldnt really make much difference but in the long run (aka a year or 2) the 2.2 might perform better but it just depends on what you use your computer for. If you use it for gaming, i just would go with the 2.2 cause in the long run you will have a better chance of running new games. Finally, i have no clue about the WinXP Pro thing cause i have always used XP Pro so i just dont really know the differences. Try searching microsofts website.

[spy_charly 0]

mmm...and so what about the double core processor in powerbooks (from mac)... you mean that they are like lying?... cos it is not two processors but one?... which do you think can be better now, buying a mac with double core or a WinXp based laptop?i heard that WinXp run better in a mac, one of the newest but who knows!...until we experiment it

[Cool_Freaker 0]

If you're looking at Intels, a *slower* clock speed Core Duo notebook still runs faster than the same speed single core Pentium M, not to mention multitasking is much better on dual-cores. If you can afford it, it's the way to go.

[adriantc 0]

For your first question: in the offer you'll only see 1,67ghz dual-core CPU. That means that every core of the two runs at 1,67ghz.
For your second question: Forthe long run I would go for the 2ghz dual-core one. The future means multitasking and you must be prepared for it. Not to mention the differeence of 200mhz between the CPU's can easy be achived by overclocking (you'll probably freeek out when you'll here thhis term but 200mhz won't increase the temperature very much).

From what I understood from those articles, the speed of dual-core processors does not mean the sum of both processors, basically because there isn't two processors in it. Actually, there's only 1 processor which is able to handle multiple tasks in a single time slot. It simulates 2 processors in it. What is actually happening in it is that the task is splitted into multiple thread pipelines such that more jobs can be processed instead of having 1 pipeline in a single core processor. Tasks will have to wait for the one before to be completed before it gets processed. Hence single core processors takes longer time to process data.
It's like a human being having 1 brain, but now both left and right brains are working together simultaneously. Hence ultimately, there's only 1 brain. In dual-core processor, its just only 1 processor.

Well I can't agree with you Inspiron. Yeah on the outside you won't see a difference between a single core CPU and a dual-core CPU, but on the inside there is a very big difference. There are 2 different CPUs. It does not simulate. There is a technology that simulates 2 CPUs (or 4 CPUs on the dual core ones) but that is called Hyper-Threading and it only comes with Intel Pentium 4 CPUs. So the dual core CPUs do have 2 separte CPUs inside. They even have their own cache memory. The only thing they have in common is the memory controller.
But the human brain example is very good until you say "In dual-core processor, its just only 1 processor". No there are 2 processors even thought on the outside it only looks like one.

[moldboy 0]

For your first question: in the offer you'll only see 1,67ghz dual-core CPU. That means that every core of the two runs at 1,67ghz.

So you're saying that a 1.67 dual core is mathmetacly (it's late I can't spell ) the same as a 3.3ghz?

[Jimmy 0]

So you're saying that a 1.67 dual core is mathmetacly (it's late I can't spell ) the same as a 3.3ghz?

Thats pretty much right! its just a little approximation as you could expect.

The other day I was browsing and came across a very good review about the pros / cons of dual and single core. To sum it up it is clear that if you are not a ***very*** avid gamer then dual core is best, but if you are going to be hardcore gaming then a fast single core tops it because of your style of using the computer. Dual core performs significantly better (than a processer of the same speed) if you are just using a few programs at once, multiple things at once like listening to music, burning a CD and browsing the net.

I play games quite a lot, and I find that it does improve very slightly when I play, although I tend to have music running in the background. This is compared to my other HP laptop as well that is single core...

SO, FOR ALL INTENSIVE PURPOSES DUAL CORE IS A GREAT IMPROVEMENT ... Hope this helped!

I'll try top find the article and post the link up on here...!

[paulmason411 0]

It seems like people are a bit mislead by the speed of a CPU. A dual core of say 2Ghz does not have the equivalent performance to a single core of 4Ghz. If you look at this article you can see various tests performed on a bunch of different chips:

http://www.tomshardware.com/articles/

You can see by comparison of chip speed to performance the results aren't linear.

There are other things to consider when buying a chip, such as its cache size and the multiplier size etc. The speed of a chip is not the best way to make decisions theres a bit more to it.

Basically when it comes down to it you will usually get what you pay for. A quality chip at lower speeds is sometimes the better option.

[FLaKes 0]

that report was excellent. It is really complete and includes everything you would like to know about the processors. I had recently heard that the recent intel processors can beat any of the amds easily, and this report just proves it. I love the graphs and all other things they used for comparing.

[PlugComputers 0]

The speed rating for a processor that is dual core is the total speed if both of the cores are running simataneously together. A 2Ghz dual core processor would mean that each core running at full 100% would be each 1Ghz, and in turn, combining to form a 2Ghz processor dual core.

[dre 0]

As I said in another post regarding dual-core cpus:

On the contrary, dual core is not combined speed of both cores. It is 2 cores built on one die, each running at the specified speed. So a 3.0 ghz dual core p4 has 2 cores running at 3.0 ghz. All dual-cores seem to run on lower power and a bit cooler than their single core counterparts. So normally 1 core is used for your current program and the other might be used for background tasks. They are both used vigorously only when a multi-threaded application is opened. This allows for the other core to take on some of the work so the job is split, yealding some nice performance results. Very few games today offer multi-threading, but it's a thing of the future, creeping up on the horizon. Those that have a dual-core will already be ahead of the game. For a closing note, when you run an intenstive app., such as F.E.A.R., when you exit the game, most single core cpus will seem a bit sluggish, but with a dual core it never happened to me.

[Watermonkey 0]

I've got a new 2.33 GHz Core 2 Duo 17" MBP with 2 GB of RAM and it screams. I love the fact that I don't have to wait long at all for it to boot up, not that I have to boot it very often, and it is very good at running multiple tasks at once. The previous poster is right about two cores or CPUs. There are two distinct CPUs in this laptop. They share 4 MB of cache memory, otherwise they're separate in everything they do. Does that mean I can think of my computer as a 4.66 MHz machine? Absolutely... NO! First, clock speed doesn't mean as much today as it used to with Intel. It's kinda like comparing Intels Pentiums to IBM's PowerPC chips (used in PS3, Xbox, and the fastest supercomputer in America): They have distinctly different architectures and go about doing things in different ways. The PowerPC is much more efficient than a Pentuim thus it could accomplish the same task in fewer clock cycles. Today's newest Intel processors are the same way which is why they're able to stuff dual procs into a tiny laptop enclosure without melting things or starting fires. The chips don't need to run faster, they just need to do things more efficiently and one way is to write software that can take advantage of that second, third, forth etc. CPU so that it spreads itself out if the machine has multiple CPUs on board. That second CPU is no good if the software doesn't use it. I think most software today takes advantage of multiple CPUs so it's not too much of an issue anymore. I don't believe you can buy any Mac now that doesn't have at least two CPUs on board. Soon, they'll release the eight core MacPro workstation.

[iGuest 3]

What is a DuoCore Processor?
First, let me clarify something. A dual-core chip is essentially two processors put together on a single chip. They are made by both AMD and Intel. A Duo processor is dual-core. Duo is an Intel brand name. Now, on to your question, Lee. Dual-core processors can do the same amount of work as two processors. That's in theory, anyway. So, they are ideal for people who multitask.

For example, you can work in Photoshop while listening to music in iTunes. You shouldn't notice decreased performance when you open another program.Unfortunately, you probably won't notice improved performance within individual programs. That is, unless you're working with a multithread-enabled program.

To understand this, you need to understand threading. A thread is a part of a program that can be executed independently of other parts of the program.

If a program supports multi threading, threads can be sent to both cores in a dual-core chip. This will result in the faster execution of commands.There are some multithread-enabled programs, but not many. However, Windows XP supports multithreading. It can send threads from programs to either of the processing cores. With work balanced between the two, you can run multiple programs without a noticeable slowdown.

Dual-core processors are becoming more common. If you look at Intel's or AMD's lineup, you'll notice that many of the processors are dual-core. However, a dual-core processor is not a necessity – yet.

If you only use your computer for Web surfing and e-mail, get a single-core processor. But if you're into video editing or gaming, a dual-core processor is a wise investment.Also, a dual-core chip will help you future-proof your computer. Intel and AMD already have quad-core chips. And they will likely develop chips with even more processing cores. The PlayStation 3 features a chip with eight processing cores!

Why is this important? As multi-core processors catch on, manufacturers will develop more software that will take advantage of them.

And there is one more thing that will push the adoption of multi-core chips: malware. We face new security threats from viruses and spyware every day. And security software uses processing power. With a multi-core chip, one core can run security software. Programs can use the other core(s).

Dual-core chips are all 64-bit. A 64-bit processor can work through 64 bits of data at a time. That's twice the data that 32-bit processors can handle at a time. This technology also is fairly new.

To get the most out of a 64-bit processor, you need an operating system and programs that support it. Windows XP x64 is designed for these processors; there will be versions of Vista that are designed for 64-bit processors, too.

Software and hardware manufacturers have not been so quick to adopt 64-bit technology. Hopefully that will change when Vista is released in January. But you may want to avoid a 64-bit operating system for now. The 32-bit version of Windows runs just fine on a 64-bit chip. And you'll avoid some of the hassles.

Notice from truefusion:

https://www.zonealarm.com/forums/forum.php?s=2d65a2ba2daa238afdb85b2eaa31e46f Third time today. Why don't we take some time off from posting.

[iGuest 3]

Re:Dual Core Dilemma - in notebooksDual Core Dilemma

A  lot will depend on what are you trying to accomplish with your system. In case you are looking to play high end games, this config will not be enough. 

 

I suggest you attend an Intel Live Chat session so that you will have a clear idea as what product you should buy according to your needs. You can get instant answers on various Intel products and technologies from in house Intel experts. 

More information at http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

 

-reply by Robin Goel