Dual core vs solo core for Gaming

Just a quicky,

Suppose two IDENITCAL (exactly same specs and model) notebooks, the only difference is in the processor:

Notebook A: Dual-core processor (2.0ghz)
Notebook B: Solo-core Processor (2.0ghz)

Will they both perform the same on a game? Or will the Dual-core have an edge over the other? If so, would it be a significant difference?


thx

 

With today's technology, I don't see why you should go single core. Dual core processors are just much faster. As for games, some may not be optimized for dual core so you would see minimal difference in speed, but nowadays, most newer games ARE optimized for dual core, so dual core is definitely your better choice.

 

Dual core basically means x2, so a very simplified representation is ...
Processor A = 2ghz x 2 = ~4ghz
Processor B = 2ghz x 1 = 2ghz
So just by the numbers, I think you understand the difference.

 

That is a common misconception. Dual-core does not mean twice the power. Dual core is like having two processors. In this case, a dual-core 2.0GHz processor is like having two 2.0GHz processors. Most applications are single-threaded so they perform like they would on a 2.0GHz CPU. However with multi-threaded yes you can potentially have a system that is twice as fast (but not quite). Usually in programs that can use multiple CPUs you see a ~1.9x speedup.

The performance should be the same. The dual-core may end up being a bit faster because while one processor is working on the game the other could be taking care of small background processes. Still, you're talking a very small difference- maybe 1 - 3%.
The nice thing about dual-core for gaming is that if your antivirus software decides to upgrade while you're in the middle of playing, your system doesn't start stuttering.

 

I doubt its that simple

Dual core processors are meant to work side by side, basically, one processor runs one app. and the other runs another app. and so forth to prevent any lagging.
I believe that seeing a C2D processor as being litterally 2x a solo-core cpu is wrong.

Rhyick, I'm not thinking of buying a solo-core cpu notebook , I was simply curious of the subject, since my gf has an older notebook and I ahve a newer one, but both processors are 2.0 ghz, yet mine is a C2D.

 

rofl, I must admit that my anti-virus has done that on a few rare (yet dramatic) occasions

Is there anyway to know if a program/game is multi-threaded?

 

In your example the Dual Core is the choice, at a minimum well operate just as well as single in gaming but likely much better, and 2Ghz X2 is not the same as 4Ghz example Core 2 dual at 2.93Ghz out performs 2.66 Quad in gaming benchmarks. Todays CPU's handle games, not really an issue but I would always go multicore the future. I would pick 2Ghz Dual over 2.4Ghz Solo.

 

Most programs that are multi-CPU enabled are programs that use a lot of processor resources. For example, Photoshop has multi-CPU support and a lot of encoding/rendering programs are usually multi-CPU enabled as well.

Programs like Internet Explorer and AIM aren't going to be multi-CPU enabled . . . no point.

 

there are many differences between dual and solo
dual core has 2 cores not 2 seperate proccesors another misconception
solo has just one proccesor with one core dual core is faster for many games because again one can be updating antivirus and one can be proccesing the game

P.S another miscon. is that hyper threading is the same as dual core it is not its just a technology that lets 1 core procces 2 things much slower than dual core

 

Then is it right to consider that recent games will be multi-cpu enabled?

Also, does a dual-core processor use more battery power then a single core cpu?

Thridly, I often hear that RAM is the bottle-neck before the CPU, and the Hard drive too. How much RAM would it take to make the T7300 cpu be the bottle-neck? And will a 7200 rpm HDD avoid bottlenecks from the HDD entirely?

 

Yes, as a matter of fact there are several games that are already multi-CPU enabled. Quake 4 and Call of Duty 2 have patches that enable multi-CPU and future games will take advantage of dual-core without a doubt. However dual-core will not be required for some time yet, as the majority of people are not running on a dual-core CPU.

 

The way that is written is very funny clearly you weren't on the development team for HT, and kind of a present looking back approach to explaining it. I think a more accurate way of saying it is HT allows 1 core to process 2 things faster (more efficiently) than non HT core.

 

exactly what i meant it still is slower than a dual core though but the pentium 4 hts have managed high clock speeds (3.40 GHz+) but are definetly slower than dual core

 

Actually I think that is in fact architecturally and functionally exactly how to see it. The other frequent but incorrect way of seeing it as the sum of its parts is clearly wrong as stated and explained previously. If someone wants to challenge this understanding because Intel duo's share L2, OK kinda a hybrid but AMD cores have there own L2 so are clearly two CPU put together. So I think you should rethink also if not two separate or the sum of the cores, then what? Maybe a hybrid and a little better because on the same piece of silicon. But certainly 2 CPU's