Dual core question

[lordnizzle34]

Probably a dumb question, but for example, a 2.6 Ghz Dual core.


Does that mean that both cores are clocked at 2.6 Ghz to make a 5.2 combined clock, or together they make 2.6?

 

[Slobogob]

They make 2,6 Ghz each. As simple as that.

Like a motorbike with 2 wheels. Just because one wheel makes 200 mph it doesn´t mean the motorcycle runs up to 400 mph.

 

[BustedSony]

Probably a dumb question, but for example, a 2.6 Ghz Dual core.


Does that mean that both cores are clocked at 2.6 Ghz to make a 5.2 combined clock, or together they make 2.6?

It's two separate cores at 2.6 each. If it were "combined" to double the clock rate then it wouldn't BE two cores.

 

[Sagekilla]

Two cores, running at 2.6 GHz, each one clocking at 2.6 GHz, but not necessarily making it "5.2 GHz." In the appropriate application, it'll seem as though your processor is running at 5.2 GHz because it's multithreaded and can use both cores at once. But, in most cases the chance that you'll actually find both cores being fully utilized is next to none. You might get a 30-70% improvement over the single core version, but that's about it. The only times you'll possibly see a 90-99% improvement is if you do video encoding, photoshopping, CAD, etc.

In short: 2.6 GHz Dual Core is NOT a "5.2 GHz" combined clock, but it'll seem like that in the appropriate apps.

 

[sirheck]

Like a motorbike with 2 wheels. Just because one wheel makes 200 mph it doesn´t mean the motorcycle runs up to 400 mph

 

[lordnizzle34]

k thanks lol.

Would the performance loss be to ram bottlenecking, or some other cause?

 

[sirheck]

k thanks lol.

Would the performance loss be to ram bottlenecking, or some other cause?

if you have atleast 1 gig of ram you should be good to go.

 

[BustedSony]

k thanks lol.

Would the performance loss be to ram bottlenecking, or some other cause?

Which performance loss? bottlenecking of what? You didn't suggest you were seeing any slowdowns.

 

[lordnizzle34]

I was referring to an earlier comment about how you wont always see 100% utilization of the two cores combined, so I figured it was due to a bottleneck, which I might be wrong, but I was just taking a shot.

 

[locky28]

I spose if you were to call it a bottleneck then you could consider it to be a software bottleneck (rather than a hardware bottleneck).

Programs have to be written to take advantage of both cores. If you use a program desgined for a single core on a dual core PC, the second core on the PC will be doing nothing as the program wont be telling it to do anything.

If 'Sir Heck' (Core 1) and 'Bustedsony' (Core 2) were both sitting on the porch (CPU) drinking lemonade (idle-ing) and I told busted sony to go and juice (Run) some turnips (a Program) do you think sir heck would do anything (multi-task)? no, he would continue drinking his lemonade (idle-ing) on the porch (CPU). However if I told Sir Heck to Mix Juice from (Convert) the turnips (Same program as bustedsony is running) Then they would both be doing with work (Load Sharing) as a team (Dual Core).

 

[sirheck]

I spose if you were to call it a bottleneck then you could consider it to be a software bottleneck (rather than a hardware bottleneck).

Programs have to be written to take advantage of both cores. If you use a program desgined for a single core on a dual core PC, the second core on the PC will be doing nothing as the program wont be telling it to do anything.

If 'Sir Heck' (Core 1) and 'Bustedsony' (Core 2) were both sitting on the porch (CPU) drinking lemonade (idle-ing) and I told busted sony to go and juice (Run) some turnips (a Program) do you think sir heck would do anything (multi-task)? no, he would continue drinking his lemonade (idle-ing) on the porch (CPU). However if I told Sir Heck to Mix Juice from (Convert) the turnips (Same program as bustedsony is running) Then they would both be doing with work (Load Sharing) as a team (Dual Core).

not lemonade, BEER :lol:

 

[Assman]

Like a motorbike with 2 wheels. Just because one wheel makes 200 mph it doesn´t mean the motorcycle runs up to 400 mph.

LMAO

 

[Dahak]

A dual core processor at 2.6 ghz.means that each core runs at 2.6 ghz.for a combined total of 5.2 ghz.of pure processing power.But it does not mean that both cores work in sync,it means that while one core is doing one thing the other core can do something else.Goodluck.

Dahak

AMD X2-4400+@2.4 S-939
EVGA NF4 SLI MB
2X EVGA 7800GT IN SLI
2X1GIG DDR IN DC MODE
WD300GIG HD
EXTREME 19IN.MONITOR 1280X1024
ACE 520WATT PSU
COOLERMASTER MINI R120

 

[lordnizzle34]

k thx lol.

Btw, i liked the story...

 

[duthoy]

that's the explanation for a lot of my speeding tickets, my car goes like, 8O on those speed traps!

 

[chunkymonster]

A dual core processor at 2.6 ghz.means that each core runs at 2.6 ghz.for a combined total of 5.2 ghz.of pure processing power.But it does not mean that both cores work in sync,it means that while one core is doing one thing the other core can do something else.Goodluck.

WRONG!

Two cores, running at 2.6 GHz, each one clocking at 2.6 GHz, but not necessarily making it "5.2 GHz." In the appropriate application, it'll seem as though your processor is running at 5.2 GHz because it's multithreaded and can use both cores at once. But, in most cases the chance that you'll actually find both cores being fully utilized is next to none. You might get a 30-70% improvement over the single core version, but that's about it. The only times you'll possibly see a 90-99% improvement is if you do video encoding, photoshopping, CAD, etc.

In short: 2.6 GHz Dual Core is NOT a "5.2 GHz" combined clock, but it'll seem like that in the appropriate apps.

MISLEADING!

Not saying this to call you out but...please read these articles on Parallel Computing and Multiprocessing as well as Symmetric Multiprocessing.

 

[Dahak]

I'm sorry,I stand corrected,sort of.Yes I know that multi-threaded apps use both cores simultaniously,but I was speaking in general every day terms.Single threaded apps,which are still very common.Although multi-threaded apps are becomming more and more popular,including games,I believe the guy wanted to know if the two cores meant that his processor was in fact a 5.2 ghz.processor or still a 2.6 ghz.processor.That was the question I was trying to answer.Maybe you could clarify that for us.TY and Goodluck.

Dahak

AMD X2-4400+@2.4 S-939
EVGA NF4 SLI MB
2X EVGA 7800GT IN SLI
2X1GIG DDR IN DC MODE
WD300GIG HD
EXTREME 19IN.MONITOR 1280X1024
ACE 520WATT PSU
COOLERMASTER MINI R120

 

[cdonato]

System is still only a 2.6ghz, its just got 2 separate cores to handle apps @ 2.6ghz each. Same idea as multiple cpus only on a single chip instead. They don't combine to become a super chip or else it would only be a single cpu/core running @ a higher speed that has not yet been achieved

 

[Dahak]

That was my understanding as well.TY for your input.

Dahak

AMD X2-4400+@2.4 S-939
EVGA NF4 SLI MB
2X EVGA 7800GT IN SLI
2X1GIG DDR IN DC MODE
WD300GIG HD
EXTREME 19IN.MONITOR 1280X1024
ACE 520WATT PSU
COOLERMASTER MINI R120

 

[lordnizzle34]

I wasnt necesarrily referring to the two cores becoming one super core through to combination of the two, but collectively they form a 5.2 clock.

Sry for the mixup