Back
to top
Dual-core and single-core processors
Watch
Announcements
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
1) If a laptop's description says it has a Dual-core 1GHz processor, does that mean 2x1=2GHz? Or is it just 1GHz?
2) A laptop has a single-core 1.5GHz, and another laptop has Dual-core 1Ghz processor. If all other things about them are equal, which one is faster?
Thanks in advance for the answer.
2) A laptop has a single-core 1.5GHz, and another laptop has Dual-core 1Ghz processor. If all other things about them are equal, which one is faster?
Thanks in advance for the answer.
0
reply
Report
#2
(Original post by Spiral1977)
1) If a laptop's description says it has a Dual-core 1GHz processor, does that mean 2x1=2GHz? Or is it just 1GHz?
2) A laptop has a single-core 1.5GHz, and another laptop has Dual-core 1Ghz processor. If all other things about them are equal, which one is faster?
Thanks in advance for the answer.
1) If a laptop's description says it has a Dual-core 1GHz processor, does that mean 2x1=2GHz? Or is it just 1GHz?
2) A laptop has a single-core 1.5GHz, and another laptop has Dual-core 1Ghz processor. If all other things about them are equal, which one is faster?
Thanks in advance for the answer.
2. First and foremost avoid single core laptops like the plague- at this point of time any single core laptop is going to be a relic.
As for whether higher cores or higher clock is better, it's never that simple- I'd take a low voltage dual core i3 over a low end AMD quad core most of the time. The processor architecture, the intended uses, and other factors all play a part.
0
reply
Report
#3
(Original post by Spiral1977)
1) If a laptop's description says it has a Dual-core 1GHz processor, does that mean 2x1=2GHz? Or is it just 1GHz?
2) A laptop has a single-core 1.5GHz, and another laptop has Dual-core 1Ghz processor. If all other things about them are equal, which one is faster?
Thanks in advance for the answer.
1) If a laptop's description says it has a Dual-core 1GHz processor, does that mean 2x1=2GHz? Or is it just 1GHz?
2) A laptop has a single-core 1.5GHz, and another laptop has Dual-core 1Ghz processor. If all other things about them are equal, which one is faster?
Thanks in advance for the answer.
However, there are other important factors, such the architecture of the processor itself....a 3 year old dual core 2.5ghz processor against the latest 1.5ghz dual core, the 1.5ghz would win. These days its more than the clock speed, but the physical body of the processor, etc As they are more efficient and capable of processing quicker as a result.
Dual core wins, today every type of computer program can optimise dual cores so will run faster and many can use quad cores to its full extent.
0
reply
Report
#5
(Original post by Camoxide)
Also core i3s are dual core hyper threaded which means they act like a quad core.
Also core i3s are dual core hyper threaded which means they act like a quad core.
They have a few duplicated parts that allows the OS to schedule 2 threads on each, so that when 1 thread is not using shared execution resources (eg. it has a pipeline stall), the other thread can run. In reality this usually gives ~10% increase over no HT. It's nowhere near a real quad core.
0
reply
Report
#6
(Original post by ihavemooedtoday)
They don't quite act like quad core.
They have a few duplicated parts that allows the OS to schedule 2 threads on each, so that when 1 thread is not using shared execution resources (eg. it has a pipeline stall), the other thread can run. In reality this usually gives ~10% increase over no HT. It's nowhere near a real quad core.
They don't quite act like quad core.
They have a few duplicated parts that allows the OS to schedule 2 threads on each, so that when 1 thread is not using shared execution resources (eg. it has a pipeline stall), the other thread can run. In reality this usually gives ~10% increase over no HT. It's nowhere near a real quad core.
That's a %50 gain in physics processing with hyperthreading.
0
reply
Report
#7
(Original post by Camoxide)
Although it's not nearly as good as a true core, hyperthreading can significantly improve performance
![Image]()
That's a %50 gain in physics processing with hyperthreading.
Although it's not nearly as good as a true core, hyperthreading can significantly improve performance
That's a %50 gain in physics processing with hyperthreading.
It depends on a million things.
For example, better written code will benefit less, because they will be using the CPU more efficiently already. HT relies on suboptimal code (which leaves the CPU hanging) to schedule another thread to run at the same time.
Memory bandwidth or cache constrained code won't run any faster because the 2 hyper threads share the same cache and memory bus.
Code that require more work to be done when more threads are involved (things like some types of searches or encoding algorithms) may actually become slower. For example, if 2 threads require 1.2x the amount of total work to be done, it will definitely be faster on a real dual core, but quite possibly slower on HT.
From my experience writing multi-threaded code, 10-20% improvement from HT is common. Anything higher is rare.
"Up to 50% gain" doesn't mean anything. "Up to 50% gain, 2% of the time" does.
Where did you get that picture from? Link?
0
reply
X
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Quick Reply
Today on TSR
-
Ofqual consultationTeachers to use 'mini-exams' and other work to decide grades
- Is it too late to do well in my A-levels?
- What Harry Potter house are you in?
- 2021 wellbeing blog launch
- Student tips on lockdown mental health