Answer needed!!!! Quad core 1.8 GHZ vs duo core 2.6 GHZ

Hi everyone!
My friend and I argue whether the 1.8 GHZ duo core has the total speed 1.8 GHZ or 3.6 GHZ?
I believe the duo core has two cores so each core will have the speed 1.8 GHZ therefore in sum up it will be 3.6 GHZ.
My friend believes the core is not really important. He compares the quad core 1.8 GHZ vs duo core 2.6 GHZ (both not use hyper threading technology), just example! He believes that 2.6 GHZ duo core will faster than 1.8 GHZ quad core. It’s because he thinks the real speed of those processors are not being multiplied by the number of cores. The 1.8 GHZ quad core will be 1.8 GHZ in speed and 2.6 GHZ duo core will be 2.6 GHZ.
Sorry if our argument seems a silly question for you guys but I need to have a clear answer!

 

Overall CPU performance is a very complicated function of frequency, cache and FSB speed. You can't simply add or multiply the numbers.


--

 

GHz ≠ speed.

You need to tell us the models of CPU we are comparing.

 

The speed is not being multiplied by the number of cores. The speed is the 1.8, but multi-threaded apps will run faster. You can not say a different core speed just because there are multiple. The Quad core is going to be faster.

 

That really depends. If you are running a single threaded app, a 3GHz dual core will be faster than a 2GHz quad core in the same generation. After all you will only utilize one core.


--

 

But the processor should offer Turbo Boost or similar for single-threaded apps.

 

You're both completely wrong.

 

First of all, you both are wrong. As mentioned before, give us the processors and we will give you feedback.

You are just adding that speeds, it doesn't really work like that.
Your friend is the bigger idiot by far, since a quadcore will shred a dualcore in a multicore application.

The only way I can try and sum it up is that turboboost on any quadcore processor will work it up to the point where, if the application only utilizes 2 cores, it will be able to compete essentially at level of a dualcore. This is not always the case, and sometimes the dual core is just more optimized, like the 2635m (i believe?) which is 2.7-3.4ghz vs a 2630qm (i believe?) which is 2-2.8ghz. Essentially the 2635 runs 2 cores at a base of 2.7ghz, up to 3.4ghz. The 2630 runs four cores starting at a base of 2ghz to 2.8ghz. If an application utilized 4 threads, the 2630 would be owning, but if it utilized 2 or less cores, the 2635 would perform better.

So you really can't compare speeds straightout, I mean look at AMD's offerings. They have really high ghz offerings, but get their but kicked by sandy bridge with lower ghz

 

Agreed. multicore programs will totally kick butt w/ a quad core over dual. I use Media Monkey, where the free version is a single-threaded app and the pro version unlocks multi-threaded.

If one were to compress 8 WAV files to mp3 or FLAC using the free version of Media Monkey, a higher GHz dual core will be faster than a quad core.

But... were those same 8 files converted using MM pro and a lower GHz quad core... the 8 files will be converted simultaneously by the program rather than one at a time. I've been able to convert 1,000 flac songs to VBR256 mp3 in about an hour using multithreaded.

 

thanks guys! I get the idea you guys just gave me. Unfortunately, my friend and I just use example to compare so I don't know what processors I need to give the information.
However, what program/system will use 2 core threads and 4 core threads?

 

Do you expect us to list you a few million program names here?


--

 

How about your operating system?

 

It would be cool actually if someone could put that together. Is there any general statement you could say, like cheaper seeming software being usually dual threaded, or certain types of apps usually using 4 threads as a standard?

 

It's not a simple price issue either, some tasks simply can't be broken up to be run by multiple processes. Take, for example, calculating the value of Pi. That's a single, complicated task that can't be broken up, since each succeeding part depends on a previous part. Basically, the more different things that are happening simultaneously, the more likely that a program can take advantage of multiple cores, but this doesn't necessarily mean that the program is coded to be able to do so.

 

Most video encoding/rendering/editing programs will uses as many cores as you have.

Most modern games support multicore aswell.

 

Most modern games actually only support dual-core. The truth being that apart from some games like RTSes where extra threads to run unit AI would be useful, most games really don't need much more than that.

 

totally off topic, but I love the speedtest in your siggy.

 

Why thank you

 

4 cores does not equal 4 times the speed although the cores run on the same speed.

Simple and basic explanation:
Think about quad core as a parallel circuit connection.
Example:
You have 4 cores with the same power trying to finish searching the hard drive for virus. That is equivalent to 4 batteries hooked up in parallel connection trying to make a electric fan turn 10 times. Although there are 4 batteries, each of them 1.5V DC, you will still run the electric fan with 1.5V. Now the good thing about quad cores is that they have a secret trick up its sleeve.

Back to my example. If you at the same time as searching the hard drive for virus also decide to play a movie, you will still be able to perform the virus search at the same speed as you did before while also watching the movie.
That is equivalent to having a battery running the electric fan, but now also throwing in another electric fan at the same time in a parallel connection. The electric fan will go at the same speed as before, and the new electric fan will also recieve the same voltage and will therefor run at the same speed.
The difference between a Dual core and a Quad core is that the dual core will manage 2 electric fans, while the Quad core will manage 4 fans.

 

Good concept, Cloudfire.

 

thanks Cloudfire! thanks for your good example.

 

Excellent example coudfire, +rep
it's always been hard for me to explain this, so I hope you don't mind if I use your post =D

 

I always compare it to a multiple lane freeway with different speed limits. Say comparing a 2.0GHz Quad core (60mph) with a 2.8GHz Dual core (85mph).

Dual core is a two lane freeway and quad core is a four lane freeway. You get a lot more cars from A to B with four lanes at 60mph in the same amount of time as you could get cars running two lanes at 85mph.

Obviously the two lane freeway has the edge if only two lanes are available (threads) on the four lane freeway occasionally because they both have two lanes, and the four lane is still only 60mph. It's like a fluid flow problem.

 

Go ahead waleed. There are of course lot more to Quads and Dual Cores (multithreaded applications etc), but what i wrote down was the basic and probably simple enough that anyone can understand it

Good example HTWingNut. I liked that one.

 

Some nice comparisons here :] thanks.

 

The answer is that you're both right.

Depending on the 'type' of work and the specific application used, you could see up to half the time needed on the dual core or 2.6/1.8 = 44% faster on the single core. (eg. WinRAR (multithreaded) vs. singlethreaded WinZip).

In the real world though, just idling, most systems need more than one thread to be ready for instant response from the user.

So while the single core will win all single threaded benchmarks; the dual core will feel faster in everyday use (just as a quad core will feel more fluid than a dual core).

However, with the newest iCore's able to Turbo Boost on demand, the scenarios in which the lower core count cpu's will 'win' in benchmarks are far, far fewer than pre Turbo Boost platforms.

So, if we're talking about current platforms in real world usage - the answer is you're both wrong.