2Ghz solo versus 1.6Ghz dual core processors

Which is "better" and why? Question is entirely Intel versus AMD independent.

 

1.6GHz Dual Core:
1) Most single threaded applications don't even need 1.6 let alone 2.0.
2) You are almost always running more than one app, even if you don't know it.
3) Dual core is wonderful for multitasking.
4) If one application suddenly needs more power, it shouldn't freeze other applications on a dual core machine.

 

Nice. Most of the tasks I run shouldn't be too processor intensive, and I include DVD playback in that. The only one that worries me is a game called Football Manager 2007, whose recommended specs as per the DVD case are 2Ghz processor and 1GB RAM. However, the game supports threading, when run on a dual core machine. It's really with regards this one game that my initial question largely hinged.

To anyone not in the know, FM is a number-crunching, stats-based management simulator, more in common with an Excel spreadsheet than the latest 3D games. A graphics-whore it is not. Processing speed and RAM are far more important concerns. Therefore the ability of a dual core machine to run this game and multitask at the same time without freezing, crashing or slowdown, is of paramount importance to me.

 

The 1.6 GHz dual core is probably the one to go for. Even though it has a lesser clockspeed, the fact that it can multi-task is a massive advantage. The ability to multi-task better outways clock speed on several matters. If you wish to do encoding, then the 2 GHz model will probably be fester (if we are talking about the same processer), however, more and more programs are becoming multi-threaded, and so they will take advantage of both cores. If that is the case, then the 1.6 GHz model will become faster. At the moment, not a massive amount of programs are multi-threaded, however thisk will all change as time passes. Hope this helps.

 

It does. Thank you. What you are essentially saying is that two 1.6 cores running in paralell basically offer up to 3.2Ghz worth of performance?

 

No, 3.2 GHz cannot be achieved. The tasks set by a multi-threaded using a dual core, will be faster, but it probably won't be twice as fast. I am not sure how much faster it will actually be. The reason why it won't be twice as fast is because the second core will only be utilised when it is not working on a seperate task. The tasks will be completed in an order, so upcoming tasks will be placed in a queue. So, the processer will be given a few background taks to finish, and a load of other tasks from the multi-threaded application.

 

Right. So what you're saying is the second core will deal with stuff that would have robbed performance in a 2Ghz processor? So while a 2Ghz processor would have been dragged down trying to run both foreground and background tasks, a 1.6 dual core will allocate all secondary and background tasks to the second core, allowing the first to utilise all of its performance on primary tasks? Am I correct?

Assuming I am, what exactly counts as a foreground and a background task, and do their allocations change dynamically as my usage changes? Here's a scenario. I'm playing football manager and listening to music on iTunes in the background, itself also downloading some songs from the store. I temporarily minimize FM's window in order to reply to a friend on MSN, whilst FM processes in the background and iTunes is playing away. Quick switch to Firefox to check my email whilst my MSN conversation is on hold, back to Football Manager, awaiting my friends reply.

If you wouldn't mind, could you explain to me in as brief layman terms as possible, the theoretical processor usage in my example. Which programs are fore and background, and at when are they so? What are each processors doing as I multitask, and which tasks are each processing? How much performance am I getting out of the primary core the whole time?

It's only a theoretical assessment I'm looking for, if it all looks too daunting. Thank you very much for taking the time to explain it to me.

 

Yes, you are correct. However, bear in mind, that the first core may not invlove itself with all tasks that the application needs. There will be some background processes running, and they will always need a bit of the processers power to operate correctly. Imagine that both processers, are processing the application in a majority, and the other minority are the background processes.

Now I understand you want to know what these processers are. You can see these under Task Manage, under the processer tab. It will list the processes running there. All those will take some processing power up, and the more you have, the more the processer will become saturated with them. So, the processer, whilst doing the tasks set by the application, has to contend with the background processes.

Your example is very good. The situation for the processer is constantly changing. Your game will take up most of the processing power, because it is active. When, you minimise that, the processing power will mainly go towrd the Windows that has appeared, and any other processes running in the backgorund. Some processing power is used to keep the game running. At this point, the cores should share the same amount of load, so that Windows is still responsive. When you are working in Windows, like your example, after minimising the game, then Windows will allocate tasks to both the cores, and the speed should be fairly constant, so long as nothing that needs alot of processing power is opened. If there is anything else you wish to ask. don't hesitate to post .

 

Thank you. You've made it pretty clear, particularly with regards the scenario I envisaged which is pretty standard for me, that 1.6Ghz dual core processor is the clear winner over a 2Ghz solo core. And that pretty much answers the thread. Thanks!

 

No problem. I'm glad I could help you.