If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
GHZ vs Cores?
Can somebody please tell me why a chip that is a P4-3.2 ghz is a lesser
performer than a P dual core 2.6 ghz? Intel is really messing up my upgrade thoughts! Thanks. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
GHZ vs Cores?
Quite a few reason for dual core performs well than a single core at higher
clocks, - Higher or more Cache, usually shared between 2 cores so that your application threads execute on both cores at the same time and they get info(data). from their shared cache instead of depending on large and slower cache in single core. - Applications itself can be made to use dual core technology extensively. - More efficient Cpu design,Cache distribution, Access time for cache,memory controllers. For more technical overview Search www.google.com for "Dual core vs single core cpu's" Cheers "ajb" wrote in message ... Can somebody please tell me why a chip that is a P4-3.2 ghz is a lesser performer than a P dual core 2.6 ghz? Intel is really messing up my upgrade thoughts! Thanks. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
GHZ vs Cores?
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 22:22:33 -0400, ajb wrote:
Can somebody please tell me why a chip that is a P4-3.2 ghz is a lesser performer than a P dual core 2.6 ghz? Intel is really messing up my upgrade thoughts! Thanks. The P4 was designed to do nothing fast. Specifically the problem was that it had a very long pipeline, something like 30 stages. The long pipeline allowed it to run at high clock rate because less had to be done in each stage. The problem with a long pipeline is that code is full of branches, as I recall from my days of designing CPUs, branches occur every 4 or 5 instructions. You can predict the direction of many but not all branches. When you guess wrong about the direction of a branch you have to flush the pipeline, the longer the pipeline the more instructions you have to throw away. That's why the P4 was so inefficient, it spent a lot of time executing instructions that it ultimately had to throw away. The PII and PIII had short pipelines and thus were more efficient, it was the P4 that was different. The long pipeline and resulting high clock rate worked for Intel for several years. Most people assumed that the a highest clock rate was the same thing as the highest speed so as long as Intel could keep pushing the clock rate up they were in a good marketing position. However they ran into a limit due to heat. The faster the clock the higher the power consumption. The P4 reached a point where it couldn't be cooled any more so Intel couldn't keep pushing up the clock speeds. In the mean time AMD came out with the Athlon 64 which had a short pipeline and a on board memory controller. The A64 was much more efficient than the P4 so it was able to run programs faster at a fraction of the heat. Eventually AMD took a huge amount of market share from Intel. Intel has finally responded. The new Core2 has a short pipeline and a huge cache. The Core2 is faster than the A64 and consumes about the same power when fully loaded. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
GHZ vs Cores?
ajb wrote:
Can somebody please tell me why a chip that is a P4-3.2 ghz is a lesser performer than a P dual core 2.6 ghz? Intel is really messing up my upgrade thoughts! Thanks. Forget all the technical talk about cache size, application threads, and long pipelines...Everything is simply a lot faster, smoother. Period. I use both Pentium-M (single) and a Core Duo laptops...there's no comparison. There is no compelling reason in my mind to ever get a single-core system. Case in point: Last night I was doing an sfc /scannow on my single-core system...I couldn't do anything while this was in process (about 10 minutes). Everything slowed down to a crawl. The Pentium-m was basically brought to its knees. This doesn't happen with my dual core. I can go merrily on my way and do other tasks will the computer is doing something else. I can't tell how much better this makes the computing experience. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
GHZ vs Cores?
The poorly designed P4 3.2 GHz processor used VERY long pipelines internally
that slowed down the effective real processing speed of the CPU. The new CORE 2 Duo's use well designed short pipelines, run much cooler, and are FAR more efficent in running high speed computations than the older P4's. Higher GHz speed does NOT always mean the CPU runs faster in the real world. -- DaveW ---------------- "ajb" wrote in message ... Can somebody please tell me why a chip that is a P4-3.2 ghz is a lesser performer than a P dual core 2.6 ghz? Intel is really messing up my upgrade thoughts! Thanks. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
GHZ vs Cores?
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Intel or AMD? | Kancil Killer® | Asus Motherboards | 49 | May 5th 06 10:49 PM |
Athlon64,Socket 939 cores | Dewayne Thomas | Asus Motherboards | 3 | February 10th 06 07:06 AM |
Different cores for X2 3800 but which overclocks better ? | Boris Easten | Homebuilt PC's | 1 | December 7th 05 11:16 AM |
AMD X2 Dual Core 3800. How many different cores does this chip have ? | Paul Mathews | Homebuilt PC's | 1 | November 24th 05 03:28 PM |
939 Mobo's/proc cores | Jamie | General | 4 | November 4th 05 02:13 AM |