Overclock.net banner
1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
76 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Im sure this has already been explained somewhere but I couldn't find anything so forgive me if this is repetitive.

I recently upgraded to an E6600 2.4 Ghz Conroe from a Pentium 4 3.4 Ghz Prescott. I understand that even though my new cpu is only 2.4 its better than my old 3.4 because its dual core. My brother told me that from what he's heard, the 3.4 is still faster for single applications but the 2.4 dual core is faster for multi-tasking. He says that if you're only running one app the dual core only processes with one of its cores @ 2.4 so it would be slower than my old 3.4. I really hope he misunderstood because I thought that the dual core split up the processing between both cores even on a single application so it would actually be processing @ 4.8. Can someone clear this up for me?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
690 Posts
The way I look at it, even if you only have one core working with your application, you have the other core to run the stuff in the background. ie. antivirus, antispyware, windows processes, ... This will speed things up even for your single threaded apps. But some programs are multi-threaded, and more and more are going to be. Then they will utilize both cores and run much faster.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,891 Posts
not really, even one of those cores has faster processing power then the old p4 type cpu, and you cant compare the speed of the two cores added up, in a way i guess you could in a multi threaded app that took advantage of dual cores but its still jsut 2.4 ghz

say if you had a single core e6600 and a p4 the e6600 core will still be faster
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,299 Posts
well because its core 2 duo it will be faster than pretty much any AMD, and ALL old intels, windows xp doesn't like dual core's that much, but using the windows xp dual core patch it makes it "work", but yes having a multi core is much better for multitasking than a single core, but with new multi threaded applications a dual core will have a MAJOR advantage
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
76 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Quote:


Originally Posted by noshibby
View Post

well because its core 2 duo it will be faster than pretty much any AMD, and ALL old intels, windows xp doesn't like dual core's that much, but using the windows xp dual core patch it makes it "work", but yes having a multi core is much better for multitasking than a single core, but with new multi threaded applications a dual core will have a MAJOR advantage

Could you elaborate on this? I havent heard of this patch.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,422 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by bdattilo
View Post

Clockspeed does not matter anymore. The P4's did 6 operations per clock cycle, and the C2D's do 12 ops. So, a 2ghz C2D= a 4ghz P4 (roughly).



Core is a more advanced and efficient architecture compared to your old P4 (which ran on NetBurst). This is why the 2.4Ghz E6600 is significantly faster.

Some of the differences between Core and Netburst:
  • Core has a 4 stage execution core (decoders), which Netburst (and K8) have 3. This allows Core to complete all 4 stages of processing in 1 cycle.
  • Core has a new and more advanced FPU (floating point unit). This is why the Core has extremely fast SuperPi and computational scores.
  • Core has a new, unified cache system. Whereas in Netburst the L2 Cache is seperated (2x2Mb L2), Core uses a fast unified Core (4MB)
  • Core uses
A more complete read on the Core Architecture here:

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/sho...spx?i=2748&p=1
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
6,696 Posts
Paul, just to correct a few mini errors that you have made within your post.

Quote:


Core has a 4 stage execution core (decoders), which Netburst (and K8) have 3. This allows Core to complete all 4 stages of processing in 1 cycle.

Core has a new and more advanced FPU (floating point unit). This is why the Core has extremely fast SuperPI and computational scores.

Core has a new, unified cache system. Whereas in Netburst the L2 Cache is seperated (2x2Mb L2), Core uses a fast unified Core (4MB)

First Core 2 Duo has indeed got a four stage array execution core processing unit. However this processing system is not a decoder. The only major decoder within the Core 2 Duo design is the x86 decoding system, which is different from the Execution Core.

The x86 decoding system (1 Complex + 3 Simple) decodes x86 instructions so the processor can processor them. The rate of this depends upon the complexity of the instruction.

For example if we had:

EAX - B1 + A1 = C1

This would be assigned as a simple instruction and therefore can be executed and processed within a single execution pass.

Secondly, regardless of the number of execution units within an x86 architecture processor, the execution rate will usually be less than that specified. For Core 2 Duo an execution rate of four will be hard to obtain given the complexity of current instructions. Therefore I would vote for a rate of two to three hypothetically.

The Floating Point Unit is not technically new. The FPU is made out of multiple units for execution and processing. The "new"FPU incorporates an additional unit, brining the FPU count to four units instead of three. Additional performance enhancements have also been added.

The cache is technically not unified, unified means that an item can do anything in computation terms. The cache is itself a shared system that can be addressed by a dual cache allocation system within both cores of the processors.

By creating a unified cache we would technically have had to allow standard file data to be stored within the Levels of Internal cache, this can not be done technically. Therefore the cache is not unified. Another point about this is that the cache can only address a singular form of data a pass, unification means that multiple data can simultaneously addressed of different types. This is not so, therefore unification is irrelevant in this case of the Core 2 Duo.
 

·
Retired
Joined
·
2,446 Posts
The_Manual, you must be some sort of child prodigy... at 17 I wouldnt understand 3/4 the words your using, at 21 I still dont understand 1/4 (ok, I do, but you get the point). Every single one of your posts make my head spin... anyways, just my round-about way of saying thanks for all your contributions.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top