Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Stupid and yet confusing question

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 11, 2007 5:26:22 AM

Does anybody know if a eg. 2.4 ghz core 2 duo e6600 is 2.4ghz x 2 core =4.8Ghz or just 1.2ghz x 2 core = 2.4ghz?
May 11, 2007 5:30:44 AM

Quote:
Does anybody know if a eg. 2.4 ghz core 2 duo e6600 is 2.4ghz x 2 core =4.8Ghz or just 1.2ghz x 2 core = 2.4ghz?


I'm afraid the world will never know.

:lol:  . o O (I can't believe that question is still asked)

The answer is both cores run at 2.4ghz. You don't take the stock speed and multiply them by X2 just because there are 2 cores or divide them.

It's basically 2 CPU's that an OS has access to.

Edit: ooo.. vern beat me to the post. :lol: 
May 11, 2007 5:31:52 AM

Quote:
Does anybody know if a eg. 2.4 ghz core 2 duo e6600 is 2.4ghz x 2 core =4.8Ghz or just 1.2ghz x 2 core = 2.4ghz?


Technically its 2x the clock frequency, but most programs don't utilize both cores fully or even at all. From what i understand the ~ performance increase from a single core at given clock speed(2.4ghz) to dual core is 1.8 X 2.4ghz relative performance. That would equal about 4.3ghz, but as we know, a dual core AMD x2 for instance, does not perform like a 4.3ghz single core. Too bad thats not the case though, that would be sweet. XD

EDIT: Damn, you both beat me to the post, when i replied, there were no posts :cry: 
Related resources
May 11, 2007 5:32:58 AM

I entered to the computer world ( meaning ever touched a computer ) 2 years after the Duo core was introduced. I think i've missed the era where people explain what duo core means.

edit: you all three beat me. By the time I'm finished clicking the submit button and went back to the cpu section to make sure my post was posted, there was already 3 posts.
May 11, 2007 5:34:56 AM

Welcome to the TH forumz.

Now now, I'm just amazed that people do in fact still ask that question. So I was just kidding with my open phrase.
May 11, 2007 5:49:54 AM

You'll be surprised by how many people in my area who have no knowledge about computer at all. Most people still think 2.6ghz intel celeron D is far more superior that intel core 2 duo e6600 clocked at 2.4Ghz. People still think they have few hundred gigabites of Ram because they don't even know what it is. They still think USB 2.0 speed is 480megabytes, not megabits. They think intel core 2 duo is a name, not duo core and athlon64 x2 is same thing as athlon64 but worse because the X2 looks like a confusing face when looked sideways.
May 11, 2007 6:14:17 AM

Is it possible to turn 1 of the core off and also use cool and quiet function ( amd) or speedstep ( intel ) at the same time to reduce heat? I wanted to build a new computer using core 2 duo e6600, but 2 cores at 2.4 ghz seems to be wasted most of the time. I feel that my old Intel celeron 500mhz~ is still sufficient to complete my everyday task, but lacks speed when i need it. Only in rare instance where i do some graphic and video editing which i would need the extra performance. I wanted my computer to be green to protect the environment and save some money on electricity bill. My pals would laugh at me for saying this because Canada B.C is one of the most cleanest place in the world. Almost all of the electricity are hydroelectricity ( suppose to be 0 carbon emission) and i believe it only cost 4 cents CND / kilowatt of electricity.
a c 83 à CPUs
May 11, 2007 6:26:53 AM

Just leave Speedstep on. It should drop the multiplyer down to 6x, resulting in a much slower CPU. (meaning cooler as well, so less energy will be used by the chip and fans trying to cool your computer.)

As for turning off cores, thats supposed to be possible with the new AMD K10 chips. Each core has its own clock generater, and can be turned off as needed. Intel puts unused cores into a lower C state. (C1E)
May 11, 2007 6:32:29 AM

Does the intel processor only put the unused core into a lower C state (CIE) when its at 0% utilization? If it is, is there a program which forces windows to recognize the duo core CPU as in 1 core so all of the processing will be done on 1 core thus enabling lower C state to be activated? Is there a program where you can control the lowering of the cpu mutipliers and also the FSB ( underclocking ) in windows? In which case, I could lower the FSB to say 100mhz and mutiplier to 6 which result to 600mhz core 2 duo. 600mhz core 2 duo is more than enough to do regular internet surfing, mp3 playback and text editing. I don't mind waiting 2 seconds for a web page to load or waiting 2 seconds for Microsoft Word to start.

Edit: Just read some article about lower C state and realized that its the lowest power consumption mode in speed step.
May 11, 2007 6:52:35 AM

The C1E is basically automatically done. When there's nothing to do, it should somewhat disable it until its needed.

There are programs out there to change FSB settings, but I wouldn't recommend changing settings while in windows. It all should be done manually in the bios.

Setting affinity to a core for programs can be done manually through task manager, but once you close that program, you have to reset the affinity or core assignment.

This article explains some more:

Getting The Most Out Of Software By Properly Assigning Threads

It has a link to download "THG Task Assignment Manager". Also to point out:

Quote:
Conclusion

As you can see, the benchmarks show that using the THG utility boosts performance for some applications. While the benchmarks may have recorded a few seconds of time saved, that could translate into two-and-a-half hours over the course of a particular day.

Some applications, however, may run more slowly. You have to find out for yourself if our utility will help you in your own situation - the only way to find the right settings is by trial and error.

The THG utility, and its automatic task assignment, is at its most useful if you frequently run two applications without HT support.
a c 83 à CPUs
May 11, 2007 6:53:14 AM

Not that I know of. You could also underclock the CPU. Force everything down as low as you can, so that everything runs slower. I believe Intel CPUs are multiplyer locked up, but down should still be available. (or else speedstep won't work.)

If you want to have only one core, I suppose you could force the single core HAL when you load windows. (press F5 and chose uniprocessor) This will restrict you to only one CPU all the time though, unless you decide to reinstall windows.

Frankly, I think your both nuts. The "extra" energy used by the second core in C1E is pretty small. If you underclock the computer, and try to use only one core all the time, you'll use less energy, but I doubt it will be much compared to speedstep on with stock settings. Don't forget to underclock the GPU as much as you can too. Their starting to use more power then CPUs.
May 11, 2007 7:06:00 AM

I'm pretty sure us albertans ruin your 0 emission with our billion emission per second oil sands :p  sorry bro, but beautiful british columbia(its on their plates okay) needs to actually produce negative emissions to help the environment, c'mon bro, live free, lets the future deal with this "environment" you speak of :p 





Just giving the bc guy a hard time, its a canadian thing
May 11, 2007 7:34:34 AM

Really, the power saved by turning off a core is moot. The CPU uses ~1.4 v. Seriously, swap all your light bulbs for CFLs (you probably have) and turn them off when you are on the computer. The CPU uses next to nothing. Leave the speedstep on, use integrated graphics and a high efficiency PSU.
!