 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Windows Forum / Windows XP / Hardware / December 2005Dual - single core..How much faster is it?
How much faster is a dual core chip compared to a single core chip of the same speed? I am sure its not twice as fast.. Intel Dual-Core Demo http://www.intel.com/personal/desktopcomputer/dual_core/  SignatureCarey Frisch Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User Microsoft Community Newsgroups news://msnews.microsoft.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | How much faster is a dual core chip compared to a single core chip of the | same speed? | | I am sure its not twice as fast.. thanks.. I love that link... I will post it on my website... > Intel Dual-Core Demo > http://www.intel.com/personal/desktopcomputer/dual_core/ [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > | > | I am sure its not twice as fast.. Kenny; You;ll be better off posting about the AMD X2, which outperforms the Pentium D in every test (see my earlier post). The Intel chip is two procs fused together, but is not a true dual core. Bobby > thanks.. I love that link... I will post it on my website... > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> | >> | I am sure its not twice as fast.. Legality? Signature****************************************************** Most learned on these newsgroups Tumppi, Helsinki, FINLAND (translations from/to FI not always accurate) ****************************************************** "kenny" <nope@at.all> kirjoitti viestissä:OoGEmir%23FHA.228@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... > thanks.. I love that link... I will post it on my website... > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> | >> | I am sure its not twice as fast.. A link towards an external site is legal. I did not say I would copy the content and place it on my site. > Legality? > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >>> | >>> | I am sure its not twice as fast.. I chuckled at this, since Intel dual core procs are two cores fused into a single package, but are not true dual core. Intel dual cores cannot see each other and can only communicate through the Northbridge chip. AMD dual core processors are built as dual core and have the crossbar for on die communication at 2000MHz. In a recent test, AMD dual core thoroughly trounced the Intel dual core wanna-be; http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7-6389077-1.html quote: It wasn't even close. After reading the round-by-round account of our dual-core desktop CPU prizefight, it should come as no shock that AMD's Athlon 64 X2 chips are the runaway victors here, laying out the Intel Pentium D and Pentium Extreme Edition 840 chips pins up. If we had to call out one chip, AMD's Athlon 64 X2 4400+ is an outstanding bargain given the competition, but as our results show, any AMD dual-core CPU will serve you better than its similarly priced Intel equivalent. If you're wondering why there's such a striking performance difference between the two companies' processors, it likely has something to do with the memory controller. Among the technological differences between the two, AMD's memory controller--the component that sends information back and forth between your system's CPU and the memory--is an integrated part of the Athlon 64 X2's chip architecture. Intel's memory controller, however, exists as a separate piece of silicon on the motherboard. The additional distance between the CPU and the memory controller adds to the processing lag time and likely plays a part in Intel's lower scores. Moral of the story....AMD is the only choice. Sad to watch Intel, the once mighty giant, stumble about. Bobby > Intel Dual-Core Demo > http://www.intel.com/personal/desktopcomputer/dual_core/ [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > | > | I am sure its not twice as fast.. > Intel Dual-Core Demo > http://www.intel.com/personal/desktopcomputer/dual_core/ Forget Intel. It is not true dual-core. Carey, I suggest that you learn about AMD. Signaturer.s.nevin@att.net Although AMD may have a head start at the moment, there is no doubt in my mind that they will be left behind in the multiprocessor war that is about to begin. >> Intel Dual-Core Demo >> http://www.intel.com/personal/desktopcomputer/dual_core/ > > Forget Intel. It is not true dual-core. Carey, I suggest that you learn > about AMD. You are hopelessly a slave to Intel. You will lose. AMD is at least 2 years ahead of Intel in the dual core field, and Intel can't even build a true dual core (see previous posts in this thread). Keep throwing your money into the pit and buy Intel. Meanwhile, those that have functioning brain cells will buy AMD. Bobby > Although AMD may have a head start at the moment, there is no doubt in my > mind that they will be left behind in the multiprocessor war that is about [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> Forget Intel. It is not true dual-core. Carey, I suggest that you learn >> about AMD. I am not a slave of no one. If I see that AMD chips are better in about 8 months (when I will do the next upgrade) I will get an AMD... I am not talking about the next year.. but farther into the future. There is a big war starting.. and you have no idea about it. This is the WAR of multiple CPUs, and its all about scalability. We are going to see things like 16, 32 and 64 cpus on one chip, even more in the future. There are OS's even now that can handle that number of CPUs. So does AMD have the resources to follow this battle? Intel has the power to promote this scalability far more than AMD can... even if at this point AMD might seem like it has the upper hand, I think this is just a temporary illusion. > You are hopelessly a slave to Intel. You will lose. AMD is at least 2 > years ahead of Intel in the dual core field, and Intel can't even build a [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >>> learn >>> about AMD. Consider the following: 1. Direct Connect Architecture: AMD - Yes Intel - No 2. On-Die Memory Controller: AMD - Yes, Intel - No 3. Hypertransport Bus: AMD - Yes, Intel - No 4. System Crossbar: AMD - Yes, Intel - No 5. Separate L2 Cache dedicated to each processor: AMD - Yes, Intel - No 6. On-Die System Request Interface: AMD - Yes, Intel - No 7. True dual core design: AMD - Yes, Intel - No Intel is at least two years behind, and without on-die memory controller and Hypertransport, it will be no faster than current single core Intel procs. The only advantage that Intel has is the ability to obfuscate and lie, which is why they are being sued. It will be several years before Intel can once again be competitive on the x64 and dual core world. As long as they continue to build on the antiquated P4/Northbridge chipset scenario, they will forever lag behind AMD. Don't get me wrong...I used to be one of the most hard-core Intel fan boys around, until one day I realized they had stopped being innovative. Before your nervous twitch causes you to respond to this, take some time to answer the following questions: 1. Each new generation of Intel processor (Presler being the latest), the core frequency is getting *SLOWER*. Why? 2. Why is it that every test and review that compares AMD to Intel, AMD wins? 3. Why is it that AMD has been out-selling Intel since September? 4. Why do gamers build on AMD X2 or FX chips, and not on Intel? I can only pray that someday you will realize that Intel has allowed itself to become an also-ran. While it is sad to see a once mighty giant stumble and fall, it does happen. David has beaten Goliath, and rightfully so. If Intel had taken the initiative in 2001 to develop 64 bit processors and the associated subsystems the way that AMD did, then Intel would still be king. But Intel got fat and lazy, thinking that they could engineer netburst to 7 MHz, and could continue building chips on the antiquated P4 technology. It came back to bite them on the butt. Meanwhile, AMD has been developing it's line of processors, Hypertranport, etc. Do the math. Be objective. If you are as intelligent as you seem to be, you will see that you are betting on the wrong horse. Even Intel's deep pockets won't get them out of this. Bobby >I am not a slave of no one. If I see that AMD chips are better in about 8 >months (when I will do the next upgrade) I will get an AMD... [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >>>> learn >>>> about AMD. > Consider the following: Many motherboards with Intel based CPU's have less problems related to the third-party chipsets than the AMD units. It's not always just the CPU that is a reason for purchasing a Motherboard, sometimes you need to consider the entire package, not just the CPU. Signaturespam999free@rrohio.com remove 999 in order to email me I don't think too many people would dispute that AMD's dual core CPUs outperform Intel's. The problem with AMD is they don't have the manufacturing capability to keep up with Intel once they both start manufacturing multi core (4, 8, 16 core) CPUs. Intel has stated that their strategy is to introduce multicore ASAP in order to outpace AMD's capacity. They are prepared to sell multicore CPU's for the same price as last year's single core. If a factory can produce x single core CPUs per month then it's half that for dual core, 1/4 for quad core etc. AMD is already almost maxed out now even with their new plant. Intel has the capability to flood the market with multi core and the advertising budget to force AMD to move to multicore before they have the manufacturing capability. Performance has nothing to do with their plan. It's all a strategy to decrease AMD's market share. And people complain Microsoft doesn't play fair :-) Kerry > Consider the following: > [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] >>>>> -- >>>>> r.s.nevin@att.net But Intel's Dual- and Multi-Core processors are not built as multi-core...they simply fuse more than one core together. They cannot see each other, cannot communicate directly on-die, and must go through the Northbridge chip to communicate. It is another example of Intel using smoke and mirrors to fool the buying public, the majority of which believe what Intel claims. FWIW, I will stick with AMD, who does make true dual- and multi-core chips. I am intelligent enough not to fall for the obfuscation that Intel peddles... Bobby >I don't think too many people would dispute that AMD's dual core CPUs >outperform Intel's. The problem with AMD is they don't have the [quoted text clipped - 106 lines] >>>>>> -- >>>>>> r.s.nevin@att.net > I am intelligent enough not to fall for the obfuscation that Intel > peddles... But are you intelligent enough to find a motherboard with a quality chipset by a vendor that invested enough into it so that you end up with a extremely stable combination of CPU/Chipset/Motherboard/Memory controller, so that you have a very stable platform? Signaturespam999free@rrohio.com remove 999 in order to email me Yes... I agree... When I was talking about the capability of Intel I was talking about all that, which you correctly state, and the fact that Intel controls the market. I have no objection on AMD chips and I might get one if its cheaper and faster in the next 8 months, but in the long run I think Intel will dominate (again). Indeed there has been a slag on computer speed performance, because they ran into the temperature barrier. But now with the multi CPU thing going on, I think they will recoil. With everyone moving towards broadband, optical disks that will reach 300 gb each, High definition video... I see no alternative. People WANT all these things, and if there is a market, there will be advancements. We must not forget Moore's (co founder of Intel) Law. http://www.intel.com/technology/silicon/mooreslaw/ http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/M/Moores_Law.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law this implies that within 30-50 years computers will become more intelligent than human beings. Who is is most probable and capable of making the first artificial brain? AMD or INTEL? Kenny www.computerboom.com >I don't think too many people would dispute that AMD's dual core CPUs >outperform Intel's. The problem with AMD is they don't have the [quoted text clipped - 106 lines] >>>>>> -- >>>>>> r.s.nevin@att.net <snipped> > Who is is most probable and capable of making the first artificial > brain? AMD or INTEL? Probably neither, although using clusters of microprocessors is getting there. http://www.top500.org/lists/2004/06/ I think it will take a total change of technology like quantum computers to approach it but if it is even possible who knows. http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~westside/quantum-intro.html Kerry > You are hopelessly a slave to Intel. You will lose. AMD is at least 2 > years ahead of Intel in the dual core field, and Intel can't even build a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Bobby AMD might indeed have better dual core (and other) technology than Intel. However, when it came to buying a new machine this summer I chose a dual core PD 3G. I was expecting to get an AMD processor. Why Intel? Because the entire machine was much cheaper ($880 with 1G RAM, 19" LCD monitor) than anything with AMD I could find. At that time dual core AMD chips were particularly expensive. Maybe Intel does not produce "true dual core" chips, but my regressions (I use the machine for software development ) run in parallel in 1/2 the time when using both cores (so my test time dropped from 5 hours with P4 2.4 G to 2 hours with PD 3.0G). It can't work any better than that (comparing two cores to one core). Of course, not everybody will see the same results. But I am not the least bit disappointed in the performance. Certainly, the highest end AMD and Intel chips would provide higher performance, but those very high end chips are quite expensive. I was not excited by the power dissipation of the Intel chips (another reason that I expected to get AMD). However, the BTX case does a great job of getting rid of heat and my Intel system is very quiet and cool. You seem to be more biased against Intel than I believe is warranted. I have no particular attachment to either Intel or AMD. Personally, I am glad AMD has done such a great job with their latest generations of chips. Competition is always a good thing for the consumers. BTW, Sun claims to be 3-5 years ahead of AMD and Intel in multicore chips for servers. I wouldn't mind having 4 cores on my desktop. 8 might be more than I could easily use. Just my 2 cents, Peter For single threaded applications it would be slightly slower due to overhead and shared resources, BUT you get some back by off loading operating system threads to the second processor. Full up load them both, 50-70% better system thruput. Remember the HD and memory is shared. > How much faster is a dual core chip compared to a single core chip of the > same speed? > > I am sure its not twice as fast.. I have an Athlon X2 4800. With this chip, I am capable of running Half Life 2, encode a movie, run my antivirus with no hiccups. I know I haven't fully realize the full potential of this chip either. No regrets here with dual core. > How much faster is a dual core chip compared to a single core chip of the > same speed? > > I am sure its not twice as fast.. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.