I'm playing around with my new Xeon X3350 (same thing as a Q9450) at 3.6GHz and there are certainly cases where it is faster than my E8400 was. However, there are just as many sintuations where my E8400 @ 4GHz beats my new quad.
Originally Posted by 10acjed
thing about it is that no matter what program i load on vista 64 it seems to be multi threaded.. I realy dont know where this "single threaded app" comes from... Some programs will load up 4 cores more than others, but I still see activity on all 4 cores..
The activity on other cores from a single threaded app is incidental, a problem with how taskmanager reports CPU use, or because of drifting core affinity.
If nothing else is running, a quad (or even a dual) will have no advantage in single-threaded apps, and most apps are still single threaded. However, rarely is nothing else running and a significant minority of apps are multi-threaded.
Originally Posted by kev8888
Does the current dual and quad core cpu match clock for clock? i mean would 1Ghz Q6600 complete the same set of instructions in the same amount of time compared to a 1Ghz E8400 when only ONE core is being used?
Core for core, clock for clock the 45nm chips are roughly 5-10% faster than the 65nm chips.
A 1Ghz E8400 would be faster than a 1GHz Q6600 in anything that used no more than two threads.