Dual Vs Single Core ... Which is faster

[aliyusuf]

Which processor will perform faster if all things are equal i.e. a 2.0GHz Dual Core or a 3.0GHz single core?

 

[4745454b]

All things are not equal, so its pointless to answer this question as written.

 

[aliyusuf]

All things are not equal, so its pointless to answer this question as written.

What I meant was all other things being equal i.e. RAM, MotherBoard, HDD etc.
I have an option buying one or the other at same cost from a vendor (Albeit they are both used).

Thanks.

 

[4745454b]

Seeing as there are no single core Arch's being made anymore, probably the dual core. Rather then word this poorly, why don't you just tell us the chips in question.

 

[xaira]

i would get the dual core, as i always say, get more cores, and as it is, there aint a single core in existaNce capable of running 1080p

 

[4Ryan6]

Which processor will perform faster if all things are equal i.e. a 2.0GHz Dual Core or a 3.0GHz single core?

If you're running an app thats designed to run only on a single core CPU, and you think you'll get the whole 3G performance, you won't because some of the CPUs computing power will be being used to run the OP/SYS and background tasks, but even with the dual core clocked lower at 2G, in the same situation the primary core can address the app, while the secondary core handles all background tasks or vice versa.

You can always OC the dual core anyway, but without OCing it you'll probably still see better overall performance with the dual core because you're actually running 2 CPUs at 2G, in this day and time even dual cores are beginning to fall behind and it will get worse as software designers target more multiple core releases.

Without anymore information as to the exact CPUs you're talking about, and their own possible OCing capabilities, I 'd have to suggest getting the dual core.

 

[warmon6]

If you're running an app thats designed to run only on a single core CPU, and you think you'll get the whole 3G performance, you won't because some of the CPUs computing power will be being used to run the OP/SYS and background tasks, but even with the dual core clocked lower at 2G, in the same situation the primary core can address the app, while the secondary core handles all background tasks or vice versa.

You can always OC the dual core anyway, but without OCing it you'll probably still see better overall performance with the dual core because you're actually running 2 CPUs at 2G, in this day and time even dual cores are beginning to fall behind and it will get worse as software designers target more multiple core releases.

Without anymore information as to the exact CPUs you're talking about, and their own possible OCing capabilities, I 'd have to suggest getting the dual core.

+1

 

[aliyusuf]

4ryan6

Thanks for your reply. I am clearer now.

Regards

 

[4Ryan6]

UR Welcome

 

[Sharks445]

Number of cores and speed don't tell as much of a story as benchmarks do.

 

[HeLLpRoxXx]

Maybe the dual core is better than the single..But i have a single core intel pentium 4 3.20ghz with 2 threads(cores).And its good I dont have problem on youtube on hd 1080p.I can play dota 2,on background on youtube,fb and skype running,and dota 2 dont lag or something else..But anyway dual core is better than single but single with high ghz do a job.

 

[CDdude55]

It's a invalid question if we're referring to modern CPU's and modern applications. We've gone beyond single threaded software and hardware a long time ago so anything that's multi-core is better in this case as most software today uses at least two cores. A single core chip is only relevant if you're planning on running legacy software.

In a general sense though, it's largely dependent on the actual CPU design. This is why in some cases a 4-core might beat out an 8-core, because a CPU is more then core count.