Solved

How many Cores do I really have? Intel.

I have an Intel Pentium 4 processor number 630 SL 7Z9,

All literature reports it to be a single core:

http://ark.intel.com/products/27478/intel-pentium-4-processor-630-supporting-ht-technology-2m-cache-3_00-ghz-800-mhz-fsb

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Pentium_4_microprocessors

but, SpeedFan shows 2 CPU thermometers, and Task Manager also shows 2 processor options.

I can even assign tasks to one processor or the other (although the default is to use both cores on all processes.)

How many cores do I really have?

If I have 1 core, why is my software telling me I have 2?

Thanks, Mark.
10 answers Last reply Best Answer
More about cores intel
  1. Because of HyperThreading - each core shows up twice, and can have separate tasks. This helps to ensure maximum use of the available resources.

    Speedfan shouldn't show it twice, though. Everything else should.
  2. that's a single core cpu with hyper-threading... which means it functions as a "single core, dual threaded" (1C/2T) cpu.
  3. I didn't know Pentiums had this feature - but it's called hyperthreading. This is when your CPU interacts with your operating system to make it seem as if it has double the amount of physical cores it has, this boosts your performance in pretty much any CPU-intensive task

    i7s are notable to have this feature, which is why they're so commonly used in video editing PC builds seeing as video rendering is heavy on your CPU - and also your RAM.

    So yes, you could say virtually you have 2 cores - but physically you have 1.
  4. Some older Pentiums had it, but it was dropped off the spec sheet when Core turned up.

    Intel added it back in when Nehalem arrived.
  5. Best answer
    Milkth3cow said:
    I didn't know Pentiums had this feature - but it's called hyperthreading. This is when your CPU interacts with your operating system to make it seem as if it has double the amount of physical cores it has, this boosts your performance in pretty much any CPU-intensive task

    i7s are notable to have this feature, which is why they're so commonly used in video editing PC builds seeing as video rendering is heavy on your CPU - and also your RAM.

    So yes, you could say virtually you have 2 cores - but physically you have 1.


    Anonymous said:
    Some older Pentiums had it, but it was dropped off the spec sheet when Core turned up.

    Intel added it back in when Nehalem arrived.


    I think 2nd gen pentium 4s all had it. Intel actually had a short run ad campaign claiming they were the worlds first "dual core" processors. Which of course became a giant joke on the net as AMD released the dual core Athlons almost at the same time... and of course the single core athlons destroyed those fake "dual core" p4s... and the dual core athlons further opened the performance gap. At that point in time it looked like intel was dead as a doornob; with AMD crushing them in single cored performance (a 2ghz Athlon would kill a 3.2ghz p4); had the first great dual cored cpus AND were the first chip maker with a functional x64 bit architecture (m$ actually forced intel to licence the x64 instruction set from AMD, since AMD's worked and intel's didn't). In desperation Intel actually released a netburst based P4-D, which was literally two cpu cores soldered together in what was possibly the worst dual core cpu ever released.

    Yeah... for a time there it looked like intel was dead... of course for some reason AMD's market share never increased, and it turned out it was because intel was bribing hardware manufacturers to not use AMD cpus... (they lost a number of anti-trust suits around the world about their practices during this time... the only reason they didn't lose a big one in the USA was because US anti-trust laws are strange, and basically intel stalled the case in court long enough to regain a technological advantage... which oddly made AMD's case vanish... as US antitrust laws require you to have a superior product being held down... once AMD lost the tech edge, they lost the heart of their case)

    Of course meanwhile intel's mobile division, getting creamed by AMD's turon procesors, resurrected a 10 year old scrapped chip design dubbed the P6; and the Pentium M was born. Which of course became the heart of the coresingle and coreduos (with the coreduo intel dropped Hyperthreading, as hyperthreading was almost a dirty word with the beating they took thanks to their marketing and the poor performance from early hyperthreaded cpus), then the core2duos and core2quads... and eventually the core i series... had that quirk of fate in reexamining that old P6 never happened, had the k10 performed close to expectations... had intel not got away with it's monopolistic practices, had AMD not bet the farm and overextended itself opening foundries everywhere while expecting their cpu division to take off... we could be looking at a much more competitive CPU landscape today. And maybe... just maybe we'd be seeing more then 10% improvement in performance every 18months.
  6. Wow, thanks for all this information people I really appreciate it.

    Now for a performance improvement question:

    I am currently running an 800MT/s FSB processor and memory, (My MoBo says I am good for 1066MT/s) and this is almost the fastest single core CPU that will plug into my LGA775 socket.

    I am thinking about replacing that CPU with another from Intel, the Intel® Core™2 Duo Processor E4700 ($31 on ebay.) The SLALT version will run at 2.6GHz (as opposed to the 3.0GHz I am now running.)

    This processor does NOT have Hyper-threading, but has 2 real cores.

    My new questions:

    #1) Will this slower non Hyper-threading dual core processor give me better performance then the single core faster processor with Hyper-threading?

    #2) Is it worth going to the trouble to do this upgrade (I understand I am asking for an opinion here.)

    #3) I also see an Core 2 Extreme QX6800, SL9UK or SLACP Quad Core that will plug into my socket. It wants an FSB of 1066MT/s. My MoBo says that is OK, but have 800MT/s memory. Can I use it? It also has no Hyper-threading, but my guess is the quad core will be better then what I have.

    Thanks,
    Mark.
  7. 1) yes, that core2duo will be lightyears faster then that p4
    2) not really... first of all not all lga775 mbs are the same. most don't work with core2duos. secondly we're talking about putting a 7 year old cpu in a 9 year old motherboard. I think it's probably time to move on to something more modern.
    3) yet again... the chances that core2extreme will work on your motherboard is almost zero. just because they work on the same socket doesn't mean they'll work on your motherboard. you need to look up your motherboard and see what cpus are supported. i highly doubt any core2 cpus are supported on it.
  8. Yeah. By memory, the old chipsets don't work with the new(er) chips. Something to do with thermal protection, by memory.

    What's the motherboard?
  9. My MoBo is an Intel D945GTP. It uses the Intel 945G Express Chip set (82945G Graphics & Mem controller, 82801GB I/O controller)

    Yes, I get it is old, but I am poor, and can't really afford to replace everything.

    Acording to the Intel list of processors:

    http://www.intel.com/support/motherboards/desktop/d945gtp/sb/CS-026628.htm

    I can put a Pentuim D or Pentium 4 (I am sure the Celeron D is a don't bother.)

    So I am gleaning that the Core 2 (duo or Quad) is out.

    I also am hearing the dual core will be faster then the Hyper Threading, so maybe the Pentium D might be the answer to breath a bit more life into my machine.

    http://ark.intel.com/products/27519/Intel-Pentium-D-Processor-940-4M-Cache-3_20-GHz-800-MHz-FSB

    It, however, is rated at 130W vs. 63W for my current P4 (this makes sense since there are actually 2 dies on the one carrier). Doubling the heat will defiantly overwhelm my stock heat sink. I will have to get that hyper 212 evo recommended by Shain Taylor (different post of mine.)

    There is another option, the Pentium D Extreme Edition 840 ($20 on ebay)

    http://ark.intel.com/products/27613/Intel-Pentium-Processor-Extreme-Edition-840-2M-Cache-3_20-GHz-800-MHz-FSB

    also has 2 physical processors, and they have Hyper-threading too. (I can feel the giddiness of a schoolboy threatening me.)

    So, I have to noodle, try to save some money to afford the processor and heat sink, and not screw with the memory.

    Thanks, all. If I go this way, I will update this post.

    Mark.
  10. probably gonna be disappointed in the Pentium D.. i sorta mentioned it in my long-winded post earlier.

    As for being poor... i'm with you on that. Here is something for you to look at. the Athlon 64 x2 is like 3 or 4 times the cpu any p4 or p4d was. Netburst sucked, so if you're looking for 9 year old cpus, look at an AMD. you can get many of those cpus for like $20 on ebay. The fact some of them (like the 6400+) can go for $70 today aught to tell you how good those chips were back in the day. Then we find you a cheap am2 motherboard (you can get them for less then $20; hell i got one sitting 4 feet from me for $5; it came with a athlon 64 x2 6000+) and some ddr2 ram and off you go. you'll have quadrupled your computing power and spent next to nothing to do it.

    heck if you want to leave some upgrade paths open get an am2+ motherboard, it will work with an AM2 cpu like the athlon 64x2 and you'll be able to jump to a first gen quad core phenomII like the phenomII x4 940 when you got a few bucks.
Ask a new question

Read More

Core Processors Intel CPUs