Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Dual core vs i3

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 14, 2010 9:46:02 AM

wat z cache memory 4 both?

More about : dual core

a c 87 à CPUs
a b } Memory
November 14, 2010 10:36:27 AM

What difference does it make? Cache memory plays only a part in how fast something is.
m
0
l
a c 479 à CPUs
a b } Memory
November 14, 2010 4:40:43 PM

Doesn't matter. It is the overall improvement in the archirtecture that will make the difference.

Generally speaking, comparing a C2D and i3 with the same GHz speed, the i3 will provided a little better performance.
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 83 à CPUs
November 14, 2010 6:51:16 PM

I3 is dual core, so your comparing it to itself?

There have been dozens of dual core processors released in the last 5 years, it would help to know which one your trying to compare to.
m
0
l
a c 105 à CPUs
a b } Memory
November 14, 2010 6:54:19 PM

if i was mod, I would delete the OP account and any others that typed as such.

I would ban any account for 24hours for even replying to it

good thing i'm not a mod :kaola: 
m
0
l
a c 87 à CPUs
a b } Memory
November 15, 2010 3:31:33 AM

You'd have to ban yourself.

The question is more pointless then I think some realize. Intel's traditional C2D and other dual core CPUs need lots of L2 cache. Information needs to travel on the slow FSB, so you need to store lots of info on the chip to make it work faster. The 8x00 C2Ds have 6MBs L2 cache? Why? Because they needed to take up space?

The i series no longer uses the FSB, and has the memory controller on the chip itself. No slow FSB, and memory requests are filled a lot faster. Because of this you don't need lots of L2 cache. If you put 6MBs on an i3 or i5, it would be a waste of space. I'm not sure 256kB is the right size, but who am I to argue with Intel.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2010 3:57:25 AM

4745454b said:
You'd have to ban yourself.

The question is more pointless then I think some realize. Intel's traditional C2D and other dual core CPUs need lots of L2 cache. Information needs to travel on the slow FSB, so you need to store lots of info on the chip to make it work faster. The 8x00 C2Ds have 6MBs L2 cache? Why? Because they needed to take up space?

The i series no longer uses the FSB, and has the memory controller on the chip itself. No slow FSB, and memory requests are filled a lot faster. Because of this you don't need lots of L2 cache. If you put 6MBs on an i3 or i5, it would be a waste of space. I'm not sure 256kB is the right size, but who am I to argue with Intel.

Didn't Intel mostly replace the L2 cache with L3 cache? It's about 2.25MB of L2+L3 cache per core, so it wouldn't really be wasted. They must've found that this cache hierarchy performed better for the space, though.
m
0
l
!