Dual-Core VS Single-Core

What's the clock conversion for singlecore to dualcore ?
Thanks...

 

None. Dual core is pretty much 2 single cores put together.

The core solo is exactly the same as 1 core of the core duo. Besides that, there are no other single cores.

Or are you comparing older single cores vs. current dual cores?

 

Clock conversion? A 2Ghz processor is 2Ghz whether single, dual, or quad. If a program can make use of multiple processors (and every program is different,) then that program will run faster---up to twice as fast on dual vs single assuming it is 100% CPU bound and able to utilize 2 processors with 100% perfect efficiency.

 

I'm Converting a Pentium M 760 (2Ghz) to Centrino Duo

 

What's the miles/hour conversion for one car to two cars?

 

he just wants to know how fast say a 2 gig core 2 duo is compared to a pentium 4....from what i understood a 1.5ghz core duo was as fast as a 6ghz P4 if one existed.

 

i dont think it works like that... if your using a single processor program... the 2ghz single core, will be as fast as the 2 ghz dual core.

who gets the point b faster? the one car at 100mph... or a group of 2 cars going 100mph...

 

i shouldnt have even compared them

they cant really be compared that well, two different architectures cannot be compared.

the core duo's and core 2's are just ALOT faster, clock speed is not really an issue with them.

 

The difference is pretty big, since Dual Core programming is starting to catch roots. Dual Core is future-proof,performance and battery life-wise...

 

Think of it this way. You have one car with 4 seats. Takes you 1 hour to carry 8 people from point A to point B. Now you have 2 cars. Load 8 people at once from point A to point B in 30'...do 2 cars run faster (clock speed) than 1? --> no; do 2 cars load more people (tasks) than 1 ---> yes

 

Current Core 2's could achieve about 1.5 times the speed of a Pentium M at the same clock speed. On top of that, you have a 2nd virtual processor which will make everything run more smoothly.

As a side note, if you buy a Santa Rosa laptop, the computer will automatically shut off 1 core and overclock the 2nd to improve performance on single threaded applications.

 

wow... I love it how we are stumbling on this very short question

I'd say technically... no clue

Basically... twice as fast if its a multi core program

And yes a P4 @ 6ghz exists... but prolly shut down right now.... no more liquid nitrogen... there is overclocking records that show this...

But im sure a 1.5ghz c2d isnt as fast as a 6ghz P4

 

Cool about 1.5 yeah... def. better

Santa rosa... shut off 1 core... overclock the other... wow... I never ever thought of that (heat) and wow... I just learned something (if its true)

 

Could you explain the 2nd part more precisely? Is this feature on Santa Rosa automatically enabled? Can you adjust it manually?

 

It does not shut it off but more like a powered down state so you save battery life when the other core isn't needed. Its part of the of the chips bios.

 

I take it that chip bios is not the same as system bios then. Does a program like Notebook Hardware Control allow you to tweak when the cores are shut down at particular usage thresholds?

 

The comparison charts at Tom's Hardware might help give you an idea.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=911&model2=880&chart=435

Looking at some of the benchmarks, it's probably not too far off the mark to estimate that just a single core of a 2.2 GHz Core 2 Duo CPU is (very roughly) on par with at the very least a 3 GHz Pentium 4 (Prescott).
As others have said, the Core 2 Duo processors (I don't know anything about AMD equivalents) are using a much more efficient and quite different architecture, so direct clock speed comparisons aren't easy.

 

i have a dual core 2.3 ghz is it same a a singal core 2.3 ghz
i thought
dual core ment
2*2.3ghz
is it true or false

 

Dual core and single core chips are NOT the same even if the GHz is equivalent. Did you read the first page of this thread? If you didn't then you could broadly speaking assume a dual core 2.3Ghz chip being twice as fast as its single core 2.3Ghz equivalent.

 

No, you can't make direct comparison like this, dual core = 2 * XX. It's simply put 2 cores in just one die of processor so it will run faster and better in multitasking applications. The second core would work only if there is heavy workload that can't be done with only single core.

 

I knew I made a mistake when I did that post, however would I be right in saying that the dual core chip can perform at twice the speed of the single core when both cores are active and maxed out?

 

I would imagine that as long as a progam allows multi-threading (not all do) then two cores would be about to process the data twice as fast as a single core at the same CPU GHz, or near enough.

 

Yes, given the (very unlikely) assumption that the application would be able to distribute the workload *perfectly*, so both cores could run at full speed, and *never* have to wait for the other core.

In practice, you're usually lucky if you see 1.5x better performance by doubling the number of cores.

And if anyone still think that there is a magical "conversion formula" for figuring out the performance difference between single- and dualcore, I'll refer you back to my first post:

It's actually a pretty accurate analogy.
Two cars will be twice as fast *if you have a lot of passengers to carry, they can be transported independently (it doesn't matter who travels with who, or in which order), and if there's plenty of room on the roads*
If you have only one passenger, two cars won't be any faster than a single one.

So how much faster is two cars vs one car?
The obvious answer is, just like with dual- vs singlecore, "it depends".

 

Well will my Pentium M 760 (2Ghz) still be good in games ?

 

Here is the NBR Hall of Fame for CPU's:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=123570

The Pentium 4 is no more.

 

The way I (mis)read the original post was as a comparison between a typical single core CPU like the popular and long running P4 series and the newer dual core CPUs, like Core 2 Duo.
In that case - thanks to a different architecture and whatnot - just a single active core on the latter running at say 2.2 GHz is likely to be at least as efficient as a 3 GHz (or higher) Pentium 4.

On the other hand if it was simply a question of speed differences on eg. a Core 2 Duo system between an application only utilizing one core and another running on both (and I imagine that might actually have beeen the intended question here - although then the clock speed conversion part of it doesn't make much sense to me), then it's obviously another matter entirely, and the answer subject to things like load distribution etc. of the given application (though from my experience with things that uses up everything you've got - like 3D rendering - it does seem to be a simple case of two cores being twice as fast as one, still talking about the same CPU of course).

 

From your logic, say a Single core 3.6ghz which is 2.4x as fast as the t5250(1.5ghz c2d). Using your analogy.

1.5ghz = 100mph
3.6ghz = 240mph
Distance is 50mi

It would take 10 minutes a trip for the 3.6ghz and 30minutes for the 1.5ghz. So would the faster be better? i got bored

 

Are u comparing the 1.5 vs 3.6??? Or you forget the x2. Beside, we are talking about two CPUs with the same clock speed. Read my post carefully !!! It is time consuming of how many people can two cars take vs one car. Not comparing the speed of two cars vs one car.
And you also misread this post.

 

This is the correct answer. Very few games are optimized for multi-cores. Very few consumer PROGRAMS in general are optimized for multi-cores. To write a multi threaded application pretty much takes a decision from the beginning. Rather than write the program into components that are executed in order, you have to write the program into components that can be executed in PARALLEL.

Pretty much any Core 2 will crap on a Pentium M.

 

Go dual core. Way of the future.
Single core is kind of outdated.

Even if programs aren't optimised for multi core now, it definitely will in the future as programs take advantage of the potential processing benefits. As for now, multi core can allow faster execution of multiple CPU intensive programs. More brains the better.

 

There is an annoying trend for some sellers (especially on eBay!) of notebooks and desktops to 'combine' the Mhz/Ghz of both cores, or even Quad Cores. So you get some rediculous speed rating like 10GHz!

I have seen it done on some proper hardware retailers too but off the top of my head i cant remember which, it was not one of the big ones thats for sure.

EDIT: You can still buy Single Core CPU's?

 

I'm a little shocked this took 4 pages to explain! A link to a graph or review should have been the 2nd or 3rd post.

Here's a core 2 duo e6400 2.1ghz compared to a Pentium D 3ghz running Supreme Commander, a very graphics and cpu intensive video game (minimum requirements: 1.8ghz, 512mb, 128mb video card) that came out early 2007 and was one of the first games optimized for multiple cores.
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=890&model2=880&chart=421

Pentinum D 3ghz = 13.6 fps
Core2duo 2.1ghz = 31.7 fps

as you can see if you're playing a modern game optimized to use multiple cores (they all are now days) then you'll see a 2x difference in performance.

 

So is my processor outdated ? (PM 2Ghz)

 

umm yes

10 char

 

The reason it took 4 pages is because your explanation is very misleading.
"optimized to use multiple cores" is not a simple on/off switch. Most games can take advantage of multiple cores to *some* extent. None of them can use both cores at 100% all the time. Load balancing is hard, and generally, you're lucky if you see 50% extra performance.

Also, Pentium D was dualcore too. It was just a sucky CPU (Based on P4)
So the performance different you mention has nothing to do with the number of cores, and everything to do with comparing a 6 year old ridiculously bad CPU architecture with the latest and greatest.

And finally, of course, you can't really tie it directly to game performance. You might see zero performance improvement when upgrading the CPU. Because all the time is spent waiting for the GPU instead. It's very rare that doubling CPU speed will lead to twice the framerate in games.

Depends on your needs. It's certainly not the fastest there is, but it should still be good enough for most things. It's about on par with the CPU in my desktop, which I still use to play new games.

 

Say a game requires a 2.6ghz can i run it smoothly ?

 

A Pentium M is alot faster than a Pentium 4 WITH HYPERTHREAD....

 

So? The Pentium 4 was also one of the worst processor design failures ever, so that's not saying much.

BTW, didn't you already get answers to all these questions? Why are you still asking them?

 

If a Pentium M 1.6Ghz leaves Boston, and a Core2Duo 2.0Ghz leaves Seattle, when does Bill get his $$$?

 

Bill Gates has nothing to do with the CPU industry, you may use Windows instead.

 

Thanks for that link. Many have claimed a Core 2 Duo is approx 1.5 times as quick as a single core Pentium 4. Let's look at this.

So according to the hall of fame wPrime scores are as follows:

- Core 2 Duo T7500 @ 2.2GHz approx 37 seconds
- Pentium 4 @ 2.66GHz approx 120 seconds.
- Pentium 4 @ 3.40GHz approx 83 seconds

Well 2.2GHz Core 2 Duo x 1.5 = 3.3GHz

If you take a linear extrapolation, 2.2 GHz Core 2 Duo (Mobile one at that) ~ 4.2 GHz Pentium 4. This is for a *THREADED* application, and *ONE* benchmark only. But it does show you that the Core 2 Duo is definitely a much more powerful CPU GHz for GHz.

 

Shal I post my thoughts....

 

why didnt you instead of posting nothing...

im still running on a 1.7GHZ p4 and ive just about had it with it...cant image how much faster C2D will be

 

Didn't AMD come out with a Tri-Core CPU, I wonder how that's going to work out I wonder if eventually multi-core cpus will take over high end graphic cards, weren't dual cores pretty much blamed for the demise of dedicated physics cards?

 

Future processors, quads are going to be standard and octa cores will become the equivalent of quads.

 

Incorrect answer. Next!

 

Are you a robot? I've seen you ask this question like 10 times.

 

I'm not getting a good answer

 

No, you've been answered just about every time you've asked. If you can't understand the answer then that's on you.

In another thread you asked the same question several times and I gave you a direct answer each time. Once you responded back with a "thanks". This means you either have the shortest memory in the history of the world, or some other problem.

 

I'll attempt to answer some questions here:

Dual Core. If you compare a dual core cpu to a single core cpu of exactly the same architecture, cache, fsb, clock etc, the dual core cpu will not run single threaded applications any faster than single core, however if you are running more than one applciation they can be split over two cores, so you can do twice as much work at the same speed. A dual core cpu would only be faster running a single application if that application is optimised to run on more than one core.

Your current cpu will be ok for games. There are much faster cpus out now. A Core 2 Duo 1.5GHz might be of similar speed single threaded, so any Core 2 Duo will be faster.

Core and Core 2 cpus are based on different sockets to the Pentium-M and use different chipsets. You cannot upgrade your current laptop to anything other than a faster Pentium-M which would be useless as they only go up to 2.33GHz and the upgrade would be way too expensive to warrant.

Your current rig is ok for recent games but you need to upgrade to 2GB ram and also advisable to get a 7200rpm hard disk if you don't already have one. The most important thing is 2GB ram. 1GB ram is not enough for modern games. With 2GB ram you should be able to Run FEAR around medium at native or max at WXGA, Bioshock Max at WXGA or Medium-Low at native, Crysis at Medium at WXGA and lowest native.

Hope that helps.