can someone explain Dual core to me?

[justinsn95]

In laymans terms im behind in my computer knowledge.(but trying to learn). i realize its supposed to be like combining 2 processors, but so does that mean when the say "2.4GH dual core" that it is actualy 4.8GH grand total? Next question. Is AMD still behind in the processor races? if i have the oportuninty to buy a pentuim of the same speed as an amd, should i go with the pentium? :confused:

[ceyko]

www.google.com

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/07/71467

Not being a smart ass. Truthfully, you need to read more then what people just post here. Check out benchmarks and reviews/comparisons. IMHO, too many people are loyal to one name and will find ways to make fiction fact. I recommend doing research at these sites for starters...

-any gaming site that covers hardware as well.
www.maximumpc.com
www.tomshardware.com

Also, check out the overclocking/other hardware sites. There are a ton and you'll be able to tell by the amount of reviews and/or their forums if they are any good.

Typically I narrow it down a tad and then start really looking for head to head comparison between the various products I liked.

BTW, it is not like having 4.8ghz - it is like having 2 2.4ghz procs in your example.

According to the benchmarks I've read....well, I won't go there. Just check out your own reviews and then make your decision based of the performance you need and the price of the product. As an example a processor brand might performance 4% slower then another, but be 25% cheaper.

Take care,

[White_lightning]

its like this.. if you have one truck that can pull at most 2.4 tons over 5 miles in 10 min (Max speed 30mph)and you have 6 of the 2.4 ton loads. its going to take you an hour to pull all 6 loads.

now add another identical truck. your Max speed is still 30 mph. it can still not tow over 2.4 tons. but now you can split the loads and get it done in about 1/2 the time.

basically having a Dual core CPU means you have a 2nd core sitting around and any application that can use it will offload tasks to that cpu. Its still physically not faster.. but it gets more work done in the same amount of time./

[AbecX]

AMD has not been behind in the processor races in a long time, they have pretty much been leading it in my book for the last four years.

As for dual core, the purpose was to create faster computers without having to deal with the exponential heat when you increase the voltage to compensate for faster clock speeds. In a nut shell, its much easier to cool 2x 2GHz CPU's on the same die than it is to cool 1x 4GHz cpu. This creates a couple of gotcha's however. You might have a '4GHz' cpu, but the most processing power you can actually deliver is 2GHz to any given application since the underlying cores are maxed at that rate. This is really not a problem as most applications are starting to become multi threaded ( ie. utilizing multiple cpu's to do a task ). There is also some underlying logic that the OS and even the CPU can do itself to make some older applications to run multi threaded ( pushing sound emulation to another proc while doing graphics on the other ). In current real world situations the dual cores are top dog, but I would prefer a single core 4GHhz over dual core, however, I would take a 6GHz dual core any day of the week.

[RiSk]

AMD is ahead of the game, but I bet some one in this thread will try to back talk me.

[RiSk]

AMD quadcores is the future!

[jakester]

[QUOTE=RiSk]AMD quadcores is the future![/QUOTE]

Just a thought, but dosen't Intel own AMD?

And Intel has put AMD in the back of the bus for several months now, get with the game!

[Roliath]

[QUOTE=RiSk]AMD is ahead of the game, but I bet some one in this thread will try to back talk me.[/QUOTE]
are you talking about barcelona's?
they look promising i'll say that. BUT with intel cutting the prices to nearly half on all their cpu's. I'd love for amd to do the same with their offerings.
I'm an AMD fan, but the AM2 was a joke compared to conroe. AMD REALLy has to step it up this fall.

[jakester]

[QUOTE=RiSk]AMD quadcores is the future![/QUOTE]

And who needs quadcores when you can get 8 cores??

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/521/1/

[Mach1Nut]

I am very pleased with my conroe e6700 2.66GHz with 2GB of RAM

I also have an AMD Athlon 3800+ 2.45GHz with 2GB of RAM

They are pretty similar in my opinion for normal tasks, but when I get into some severe calculating (as in millions of calcluations) with an Excel program, the conroe blows the AMD away.

[RiSk]

In the small time world of desktops yes Intel might win due to cheaper CPUs but on my side of things, I have only had 1 customer ASK for intel. Opterons spank Xeons ass all over the place, better power ratings, cooler, less issues, faster frontside bus, the list is extensive.

[SOHC]

[QUOTE=RiSk]In the small time world of desktops yes Intel might win due to cheaper CPUs but on my side of things, I have only had 1 customer ASK for intel. Opterons spank Xeons ass all over the place, better power ratings, cooler, less issues, faster frontside bus, the list is extensive.[/QUOTE]

I have people come in all the time (usually of middle easter/indian origins, not meant to be racist) and say that all they want is a Sony. And then when I show them how overpriced and shitty they are, they let me show them other computers, but then all I can show them are computers with intel chips. and i'm like why would you not go with an AMD? 200 bucks cheaper (at least), and most of the time it's a little faster processor than it's Intel counterpart. Or it's even better when they want a pentium-dual core over an athlon x2 and I begin to laugh. Very hard.

[jakester]

[QUOTE=RiSk]In the small time world of desktops yes Intel might win due to cheaper CPUs but on my side of things, I have only had 1 customer ASK for intel. Opterons spank Xeons ass all over the place, better power ratings, cooler, less issues, faster frontside bus, the list is extensive.[/QUOTE]

I agree w/ you on the Xeon part. At a previous company I've worked for, they gave me a PC w/ a Xeon processor in it and they were all praising how "fast" it was. God I'm glad I got outta that place with my nerves intact.

I have been an AMD fan for a long time, but I have to say that Intel has been talking real big lately and shown some good power for Home and Business users alike, but maybe AMD has something up there sleeve to put Intel in there place???

[Stang2be]

C2Duo seems to be the CPU power king according to some stuff I've seen but AMD I think is the better bang for the buck.

My AMD 3600+ dual core was only $65 and runs much faster and cooler than my other machines.

Add in some nice overclocking (I've got a 40% overclock on mine) and for most people I don't think you can beat it for the price.

[RiSk]

Im going to have to (As usual) disagree I have a 36 node cluster and it only makes about 1.25 Tflops the same in the Opteron flavor would be about 20-30% faster

[Hunt4m3x]

[QUOTE=RiSk]Im going to have to (As usual) disagree I have a 36 node cluster and it only makes about 1.25 Tflops the same in the Opteron flavor would be about 20-30% faster[/QUOTE]


lurk moar

[RiSk]

bitch stfu before I hack your root lan system, DDoS it and then botnet your face.

[White_lightning]

i guess with all the super duper PC's.. my question is what are you doing that requires all this power?
my desk top is a amd 4400+ with 2 meg of cash and 4 gig of ram and does everything i need from it. if i need to do any compiling i kick over to my dual p4 3.2 xeon with 2 gig ... Whare are you guys doing that requires 8 cpu systems at home.. i thought my duel xeon box was over kill for a home pc. sheesh.

[Hunt4m3x]

[QUOTE=RiSk]bitch stfu before I hack your root lan system, DDoS it and then botnet your face.[/QUOTE]


<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/M3dF_Z1uyk0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/M3dF_Z1uyk0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

That is you.

[Roliath]

[QUOTE=Hunt4m3x]<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/M3dF_Z1uyk0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/M3dF_Z1uyk0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

That is you.[/QUOTE]
Adios Turd Nuggets..
that movie rocks!

[Viper]

[QUOTE=Hunt4m3x]<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/M3dF_Z1uyk0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/M3dF_Z1uyk0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

That is you.[/QUOTE]
lmao is that even a movie? If so what's its name?

[Hollywood]

Intel. Not because of anything i've read, but what i've seen. I know i'm in the minority, but oh well. Thats my choice.

[RiSk]

Intel huh? what have you seen it do?

[Hollywood]

[QUOTE=RiSk]Intel huh? what have you seen it do?[/QUOTE]


Seen too many AMD processors die early in their lives. Brother in law use to try and tell me AMD was better. 2 weeks later his AMD processor craps out. When I was building systems, I never had a faulty pentium, but had several bad AMD's, and we were kicking out 3 times more pentiums than we were AMD's.

[elzoro]

in my experience the last time intel was in the lead performance was was with the old northwood pentium 4's pre 64 bit. after 64 bit chips hit amd has had an edge in almost every major review i've read, but i havent kept up with dual core. i'm still trucking along in a 939 3500+ winchester

[BottleRocket]

At this point in time, Intel is ahead (coming from a long time AMD fan). Their C2D and C2E are amazing processors. AMD is catching up though. Also, Intel's "Quad Core" is just like their old "Dual Core". Its isnt 4 true cores, its shared caches for 2 dual cores. AMD is actually working on a TRUE quad core in the near future.

[BottleRocket]

[QUOTE=Viper]lmao is that even a movie? If so what's its name?[/QUOTE]

looks like (not even watching it, just looking at the screen cap) GRANDMA'S BOY.

[99MustangGT]

[QUOTE=Hollywood]Intel. Not because of anything i've read, but what i've seen. I know i'm in the minority, but oh well. Thats my choice.[/QUOTE]


Same here.

I've had Intel processors since I've had my very first computer-- never had an issue and will stick to Intel.

[jakesford]

Damn my computer is old... I don't even have PCIx, good ol' agp for me. It was the shit when I built it though :cool:

3.0 Pressy OC'd to 3.4 on air
Abit IC7 Max 3
2gigs Corsair Twin Platinum LL
OC'd 9700pro

[Sgt Beavis]

I do a ton of virtualization with VMWare ESX and at this time I only recommend servers based on Intel Xeon dual core or quad core servers like HP DL 580 G4s or DL 380 G5s. Those servers smoke anything HP has with AMD Dual Core. I've also got a group of 8 DL 585 G2 (amd based) they are still good machines but I get the same avg Virtual machine density with better overall performance using the Intel based chips.

However I know these chip wars go back and forth. I've got no beef with AMD. When they eventually take the lead, I may go back with them but not in an existing environment. AMD and Intel chips don't play nice when using VMotion. VMware is trying to get them to standardize their instruction sets so we can have mixed environments but they aren't there yet.

[ram57ta]

Im going to stick with my Sempron 2800+ running at a blazing 1.6ghz with 1 gig of ram. It does what I need it to do quite happily. I have always been a happy supporter of the AMD chips because you get more for your money. My Laptop uses a 2.2ghz Pentium 4M and it runs great so I cant say anything bad about it either. Guess it just depends what you are using it for.