Sli and Core duo

ok.. I am a little lost on core duo and sli stuff.

So lemme make sure I have this straight.

Core duo works as two independent processors to reduce lag and strain on one processor for multitasking. So.. I can pull up more applications and have it run smoother then if I were to have a single processor. As games develop and multithreading becomes more used and open it will allow games to use both processors for even smoother play... so they will work more as one.. dividing up all the work in the multithreaded game.

(thats my understanding on it as of now.. correct whats wrong please and tell me anything I major I may have missed or do not know)

And Sli.. having two graphics cards I am assuming allows for a similar multithreading type experience.. its two graphics cards which would work together to allow higher graphics to be used for better resolution, sharper image and better gameplay right?

IF any of its wrong.. please correct me.. I am trying to learn it all.. and while i do have those hazy ideas of what they are... I haven't really had time to just sit back and read about the newer stuff latly.. so I figured I'd ask here..

 

Yeah, you've got the concept spot-on.

More info:

The problem is more easily solved with graphics cards since the whole nature of graphics rendering is essentially easily parallelizable, so they can just put out drivers for the graphics card and SLI will work without much fuss. Core Duo/X2's/multiple processing in general is a harder problem, though. It works well now, especially for background processes. A network driver or modem that periodically takes lots of CPU power, or whatever. You are correct in that new games with multithreading (basically having more than one set of instructions running at the same time, say, calculating physics interactions as well as figuring out the next move of the AI players) will run better, but most games aren't CPU bound lately. They're more bound by the graphics chip. Which is unfortunate, because it really limits the depth of much gameplay, and throws more of the game back on "Hey look how pretty this is!", which gets old after a few hours.

 

You're talking about dual core processors.
Not Core Duo, which is Intel's arrogant, moronic, misleading brand name for their processors (which yes, are dual-core, but they only chose that name to confuse consumers)

I swear, if people are going to start getting this mixed up, I'm going to drop by Intel's HQ with a chainsaw.....

Dual core refers to a CPU with two cores.

A core is basically a CPU "unit". One core can run one thread, and multiple cores can not cooperate, but have to be assigned separate distinct threads to be useful.

Core (with capital C) is Intel's pathetic attempt at stealing some publicity by latching onto the current industry buzzword. (That is, the choice of name is pathetic. The actual CPU's are very good)

And Core Duo (with capital C and D) is simply the dual-core versions of Intel's Core.

 

I don't get how Intel naming their processors Core Duo (or soon to be Core 2 Quad for a quad core) is moronic and pathetic. It's a dual core processor, so they call it Core Duo; it's a simple name that alludes to the technology. This is opposed to AMD's choice to add an 'x2' to their processor names which could possibly cause some people to think there are two processors, not two cores. That's like saying it's stupid to call a rodeo 'El Rodeo' if Mexican words happened to be popular. It doesn't make any sense.

 

Which is unfortunate, because it really limits the depth of much gameplay, and throws more of the game back on "Hey look how pretty this is!", which gets old after a few hours.
===
Yeah.. I do like good graphics.. but,... its amazing how graphics can be breath taking one minute.. and look cheesy 3 days later..

thats one reason why I am probably not getting a ps3 x.x

anyway thnx guys.

 

Just remember that a Dual Core Processor does not make a PC twice as fast compared to a normal processor, but it does make it twice as efficient.

 

Two cores *are* two processors for all practical purposes. I doubt many customers would feel cheated if they bought a dual-core processor, and then were told that "there's only one cpu die, but it does contain two cores". Dualcore is typically more efficient than two separate processors, so if anything, AMD is underselling their product.

My problem with the name Core Duo is that (largely thanks to AMD), the term "dual core" has gotten a lot of attention lately. People have latched on to the idea that "dual core is good", even if most people are still vague about what it *means*. (The same way that people used to know that mhz is good)

And what does Intel do? They try to confuse customers into thinking that "Oh, it wasn't dual-core, it's actually called core duo. Must be the same thing, since it sounds so similar, and everyone are talking about core duo now. My bad. Well, I want one of them in any case. Oh, how odd, AMD doesn't make any core duo processors? They're so behind."

And please, don't say people aren't that naive.
The OP here did get them mixed up. The only difference is he asked in a forum. And he's a lot better informed than 90% of all computer users.

When people hear the term "dual core", are very vague about what it means, but are told it's "good", and they then hear the name "core duo" tossed around like crazy, well, they're going to wonder "Did I just get the names mixed up in the first place? Are they really the same? In any case, core duo seems to be the commonly used term now. Guess I'd better ask for one of those for my next computer"

If the word "rodeo" wasn't commonly known before that, it would be (well, not stupid. Brilliant marketing move. Just misleading), because it would basically steal the word "rodeo" to mean their particular rodeo, which would suck for all other rodeos.

And yes, I find it pathetic that Intel has to leech off popular technologies by attempting to steal their names.
For once they actually have a superior product, so why do they resort to cheap marketing tricks like this? They could sell their product just fine *without* trying to mislead customers.

 

Again, I don't see how it's misleading. I'll concede that it may be confusing to some, and like you, I've seen a lot of people refer to dual core processors as Core Duo or Duo Core (which really annoys me). But it's not misleading. It's a dual core processor. Core Duo. It's like the Pentium M. The M indicated that it was meant for mobile computers (i.e. less heat and power consumption with great performance); were you upset about that? Maybe it's not Intel's marketing that is confusing, but AMD's lack of marketing. AMD could have called their processors "Twin Core" or something like that, and people would have understood that it meant that the processor had two cores. Just because they decided to use "x2" instead, that's not Intel's fault. And if AMD had more TV commercials advertising their processors as dual core, maybe people wouldn't automatically associate Core Duo with dual core; again, not Intel's fault. I just don't understand how you can fault Intel for their superior marketing.

And to be honest, I find AMD's nomenclature to be very confusing. I still don't know what the difference is between Turion and an Athlon. I understand the Opterons are good and Semprons are budget, but still, Turion and Athlon confuse me. At least the Pentium 4 and Pentium D were easy to distinguish (though all the HT stuff was confusing as hell).

 

That is not true. Dual core is different from dual processor. A dual core chip has only two information traffic lanes (in/out) that BOTH cores must share between the rest of the computer's components. This is vastly different from a dual processor set-up, where each processor has it's own in/out information traffic lanes. Thus a dual processor rig will actually *kill* a dual-core set-up.

So AMD really isn't underselling their product, just as Intel isn't fooling anyone by using the name Core Duo, which is quite a specific name. If anything, Core Duo is quite honest and clear, if you ask me.