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
|
|||
|
|||
'True' vs. 'Pseudo' Quad Core
Trying to decide between dual core and quad core for my next Dell desktop.
From what I understand, Intel's current quad-core processors (at least, the ones offered by Dell) are not truly quad core, but more like two dual-core processors glued together. There are four cores there, no doubt, but certain components are shared between the two halves. Obviously, I'm missing a lot of information. What really is the difference, if anything, between the current generation of Intel quad core processors and a 'true' quad core? This may be a huge question, so I'd be fine with links to more detailed explanations. Are today's Intel quad-cores a legitimate choice, or are they a 'gimmick', like hyperthreading, something to satisfy the market's demand while they work on the 'real deal'? Thanks for your help. Daddy |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
'True' vs. 'Pseudo' Quad Core
"Daddy" wrote in message ... Trying to decide between dual core and quad core for my next Dell desktop. From what I understand, Intel's current quad-core processors (at least, the ones offered by Dell) are not truly quad core, but more like two dual-core processors glued together. There are four cores there, no doubt, but certain components are shared between the two halves. Obviously, I'm missing a lot of information. What really is the difference, if anything, between the current generation of Intel quad core processors and a 'true' quad core? This may be a huge question, so I'd be fine with links to more detailed explanations. Are today's Intel quad-cores a legitimate choice, or are they a 'gimmick', like hyperthreading, something to satisfy the market's demand while they work on the 'real deal'? Thanks for your help. Daddy You'll likely never see any performance difference one way or another between a Quad and an upper end Core2Duo imo, unless you're one of those users who obsess over various benchmarking programs. They're all damned fast. Therefore, I personally am guided by price. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
'True' vs. 'Pseudo' Quad Core
Hi!
What really is the difference, if anything, between the current generation of Intel quad core processors and a 'true' quad core? I think it can be summed up pretty easily. A true quad core processor would have four fully independent cores. Each one would contain everything needed to perform as a single CPU. You could think of a system with four single processors installed. Each processor there can function on its own. In reality, I *think* that some components (like the cache) are shared between cores. Are today's Intel quad-cores a legitimate choice, or are they a 'gimmick', like hyperthreading, something to satisfy the market's demand while they work on the 'real deal'? Hyperthreading is not a gimmick per se...but it's not what it would appear to be from the outside world. A hyperthreaded processor tries to make use of functions in the CPU that would be idle while it is doing something else. It "looks" like a second processor is available, but that is not the case. The multi-core processors actually do have more than one CPU inside, but some things--possibly the cache--are shared between the CPUs. Software that can make use of multiple processors should also see a benefit from processors with multiple cores, since each one can be assigned to a different task. William |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
'True' vs. 'Pseudo' Quad Core
See below.
William R. Walsh wrote: Hi! What really is the difference, if anything, between the current generation of Intel quad core processors and a 'true' quad core? I think it can be summed up pretty easily. A true quad core processor would have four fully independent cores. Each one would contain everything needed to perform as a single CPU. You could think of a system with four single processors installed. Each processor there can function on its own. In reality, I *think* that some components (like the cache) are shared between cores. Are today's Intel quad-cores a legitimate choice, or are they a 'gimmick', like hyperthreading, something to satisfy the market's demand while they work on the 'real deal'? Hyperthreading is not a gimmick per se...but it's not what it would appear to be from the outside world. A hyperthreaded processor tries to make use of functions in the CPU that would be idle while it is doing something else. It "looks" like a second processor is available, but that is not the case. The multi-core processors actually do have more than one CPU inside, but some things--possibly the cache--are shared between the CPUs. Software that can make use of multiple processors should also see a benefit from processors with multiple cores, since each one can be assigned to a different task. William Just about any currently available processor will blow smoke rings on my P4, Stew. That's not what I'm getting at. By the word 'gimmick' I meant no disrespect. For example, hyperthreading was 'sort of' like a dual core processor, but once real dual core processors arrived nobody talked about hyperthreading any more, and perhaps people who spent the extra money on a hyperthreaded processor wished they would have waited a little longer for the 'genuine article' to arrive. It's that situation I'm hoping to avoid. If I am going to justify spending the extra bucks, I don't want 'sort of' a quad core processor if the real thing is coming down the road. Instead, I'll buy a dual core now and make my /next/ computer a 'real' quad core. Am I just being silly? Daddy |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
'True' vs. 'Pseudo' Quad Core
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:49:57 -0400, Daddy
wrote: See below. William R. Walsh wrote: Hi! What really is the difference, if anything, between the current generation of Intel quad core processors and a 'true' quad core? I think it can be summed up pretty easily. A true quad core processor would have four fully independent cores. Each one would contain everything needed to perform as a single CPU. You could think of a system with four single processors installed. Each processor there can function on its own. In reality, I *think* that some components (like the cache) are shared between cores. Are today's Intel quad-cores a legitimate choice, or are they a 'gimmick', like hyperthreading, something to satisfy the market's demand while they work on the 'real deal'? Hyperthreading is not a gimmick per se...but it's not what it would appear to be from the outside world. A hyperthreaded processor tries to make use of functions in the CPU that would be idle while it is doing something else. It "looks" like a second processor is available, but that is not the case. The multi-core processors actually do have more than one CPU inside, but some things--possibly the cache--are shared between the CPUs. Software that can make use of multiple processors should also see a benefit from processors with multiple cores, since each one can be assigned to a different task. William Just about any currently available processor will blow smoke rings on my P4, Stew. That's not what I'm getting at. By the word 'gimmick' I meant no disrespect. For example, hyperthreading was 'sort of' like a dual core processor, but once real dual core processors arrived nobody talked about hyperthreading any more, and perhaps people who spent the extra money on a hyperthreaded processor wished they would have waited a little longer for the 'genuine article' to arrive. It's that situation I'm hoping to avoid. If I am going to justify spending the extra bucks, I don't want 'sort of' a quad core processor if the real thing is coming down the road. Instead, I'll buy a dual core now and make my /next/ computer a 'real' quad core. Am I just being silly? Daddy In one word YES. I think Stew was basically right. I doubt you'll see much difference to the eye but hey, it's your money. Might be better to get the lesser cpu and load it up with more ram??? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
'True' vs. 'Pseudo' Quad Core
"Daddy" wrote in message ... See below. William R. Walsh wrote: Hi! What really is the difference, if anything, between the current generation of Intel quad core processors and a 'true' quad core? I think it can be summed up pretty easily. A true quad core processor would have four fully independent cores. Each one would contain everything needed to perform as a single CPU. You could think of a system with four single processors installed. Each processor there can function on its own. In reality, I *think* that some components (like the cache) are shared between cores. Are today's Intel quad-cores a legitimate choice, or are they a 'gimmick', like hyperthreading, something to satisfy the market's demand while they work on the 'real deal'? Hyperthreading is not a gimmick per se...but it's not what it would appear to be from the outside world. A hyperthreaded processor tries to make use of functions in the CPU that would be idle while it is doing something else. It "looks" like a second processor is available, but that is not the case. The multi-core processors actually do have more than one CPU inside, but some things--possibly the cache--are shared between the CPUs. Software that can make use of multiple processors should also see a benefit from processors with multiple cores, since each one can be assigned to a different task. William Just about any currently available processor will blow smoke rings on my P4, Stew. That's not what I'm getting at. By the word 'gimmick' I meant no disrespect. For example, hyperthreading was 'sort of' like a dual core processor, but once real dual core processors arrived nobody talked about hyperthreading any more, and perhaps people who spent the extra money on a hyperthreaded processor wished they would have waited a little longer for the 'genuine article' to arrive. It's that situation I'm hoping to avoid. If I am going to justify spending the extra bucks, I don't want 'sort of' a quad core processor if the real thing is coming down the road. Instead, I'll buy a dual core now and make my /next/ computer a 'real' quad core. Am I just being silly? Daddy Nope. And consider hyper-threading to be Intel hyper-marketing. Sort of like the RDRAM/Rambus craze that lasted about 15 minutes. g Value for the buck is where I buy. I only bought the Quad because it met a certain price point at that time. I don't think we have a disagreement. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
'True' vs. 'Pseudo' Quad Core
below
"S.Lewis" wrote in message . .. "Daddy" wrote in message ... See below. William R. Walsh wrote: Hi! What really is the difference, if anything, between the current generation of Intel quad core processors and a 'true' quad core? I think it can be summed up pretty easily. A true quad core processor would have four fully independent cores. Each one would contain everything needed to perform as a single CPU. You could think of a system with four single processors installed. Each processor there can function on its own. In reality, I *think* that some components (like the cache) are shared between cores. Are today's Intel quad-cores a legitimate choice, or are they a 'gimmick', like hyperthreading, something to satisfy the market's demand while they work on the 'real deal'? Hyperthreading is not a gimmick per se...but it's not what it would appear to be from the outside world. A hyperthreaded processor tries to make use of functions in the CPU that would be idle while it is doing something else. It "looks" like a second processor is available, but that is not the case. The multi-core processors actually do have more than one CPU inside, but some things--possibly the cache--are shared between the CPUs. Software that can make use of multiple processors should also see a benefit from processors with multiple cores, since each one can be assigned to a different task. William Just about any currently available processor will blow smoke rings on my P4, Stew. That's not what I'm getting at. By the word 'gimmick' I meant no disrespect. For example, hyperthreading was 'sort of' like a dual core processor, but once real dual core processors arrived nobody talked about hyperthreading any more, and perhaps people who spent the extra money on a hyperthreaded processor wished they would have waited a little longer for the 'genuine article' to arrive. It's that situation I'm hoping to avoid. If I am going to justify spending the extra bucks, I don't want 'sort of' a quad core processor if the real thing is coming down the road. Instead, I'll buy a dual core now and make my /next/ computer a 'real' quad core. Am I just being silly? Daddy Nope. And consider hyper-threading to be Intel hyper-marketing. Sort of like the RDRAM/Rambus craze that lasted about 15 minutes. g Value for the buck is where I buy. I only bought the Quad because it met a certain price point at that time. I don't think we have a disagreement. lol Okay, I can accept that I'm being silly. I'll let my bang-for-the-buck-ometer be my guide. Daddy |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
'True' vs. 'Pseudo' Quad Core
"Daddy" wrote in message ... See below. William R. Walsh wrote: Hi! What really is the difference, if anything, between the current generation of Intel quad core processors and a 'true' quad core? I think it can be summed up pretty easily. A true quad core processor would have four fully independent cores. Each one would contain everything needed to perform as a single CPU. You could think of a system with four single processors installed. Each processor there can function on its own. In reality, I *think* that some components (like the cache) are shared between cores. Are today's Intel quad-cores a legitimate choice, or are they a 'gimmick', like hyperthreading, something to satisfy the market's demand while they work on the 'real deal'? Hyperthreading is not a gimmick per se...but it's not what it would appear to be from the outside world. A hyperthreaded processor tries to make use of functions in the CPU that would be idle while it is doing something else. It "looks" like a second processor is available, but that is not the case. The multi-core processors actually do have more than one CPU inside, but some things--possibly the cache--are shared between the CPUs. Software that can make use of multiple processors should also see a benefit from processors with multiple cores, since each one can be assigned to a different task. William Just about any currently available processor will blow smoke rings on my P4, Stew. That's not what I'm getting at. By the word 'gimmick' I meant no disrespect. For example, hyperthreading was 'sort of' like a dual core processor, but once real dual core processors arrived nobody talked about hyperthreading any more, and perhaps people who spent the extra money on a hyperthreaded processor wished they would have waited a little longer for the 'genuine article' to arrive. FYI hyper-threading technology was dropped for the existing core 2 range of processors but has returned with the upcoming core i7 processors. Nehalem will be four core processors implementing hyper-threading, so will be capable of simutaneously handling 8 threads. Handy for those users heavily into multi-tasking. Of course to take advantage of the newer processors a new motherboard and RAM will be required. Perhaps software vendors will write programs in the future that can take advantage of all those threads. "Intel Core i7 is a family of three Intel Desktop x86-64 processors. Core i7 is the first Intel family to be released using the Intel Nehalem microarchitecture and is the successor to the Intel Core 2 family" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_3 It's that situation I'm hoping to avoid. If I am going to justify spending the extra bucks, I don't want 'sort of' a quad core processor if the real thing is coming down the road. Instead, I'll buy a dual core now and make my /next/ computer a 'real' quad core. Am I just being silly? Horses for courses. If you are into games a faster dual core processor usually beats a slower quad core. Some worstation type programs (video rendering, photoshop, etc) benefit from quad core. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
'True' vs. 'Pseudo' Quad Core
"Daddy" wrote in message ... below "S.Lewis" wrote in message . .. "Daddy" wrote in message ... See below. William R. Walsh wrote: Hi! What really is the difference, if anything, between the current generation of Intel quad core processors and a 'true' quad core? I think it can be summed up pretty easily. A true quad core processor would have four fully independent cores. Each one would contain everything needed to perform as a single CPU. You could think of a system with four single processors installed. Each processor there can function on its own. In reality, I *think* that some components (like the cache) are shared between cores. Are today's Intel quad-cores a legitimate choice, or are they a 'gimmick', like hyperthreading, something to satisfy the market's demand while they work on the 'real deal'? Hyperthreading is not a gimmick per se...but it's not what it would appear to be from the outside world. A hyperthreaded processor tries to make use of functions in the CPU that would be idle while it is doing something else. It "looks" like a second processor is available, but that is not the case. The multi-core processors actually do have more than one CPU inside, but some things--possibly the cache--are shared between the CPUs. Software that can make use of multiple processors should also see a benefit from processors with multiple cores, since each one can be assigned to a different task. William Just about any currently available processor will blow smoke rings on my P4, Stew. That's not what I'm getting at. By the word 'gimmick' I meant no disrespect. For example, hyperthreading was 'sort of' like a dual core processor, but once real dual core processors arrived nobody talked about hyperthreading any more, and perhaps people who spent the extra money on a hyperthreaded processor wished they would have waited a little longer for the 'genuine article' to arrive. It's that situation I'm hoping to avoid. If I am going to justify spending the extra bucks, I don't want 'sort of' a quad core processor if the real thing is coming down the road. Instead, I'll buy a dual core now and make my /next/ computer a 'real' quad core. Am I just being silly? Daddy Nope. And consider hyper-threading to be Intel hyper-marketing. Sort of like the RDRAM/Rambus craze that lasted about 15 minutes. g Value for the buck is where I buy. I only bought the Quad because it met a certain price point at that time. I don't think we have a disagreement. lol Okay, I can accept that I'm being silly. I'll let my bang-for-the-buck-ometer be my guide. Daddy As you're configuring the system, just get the most capable CPU you can get within your sense of value. You'll notice the price premium differences when putting the system together. It's not as if there is a huge wealth of applications coded to fully utilize multi-core processors (someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think so). Additionally, I know of no (mainstream) software written to take advantage of hyperthreading. So, no. You're not being silly imo. Stew |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
'True' vs. 'Pseudo' Quad Core
Thanks to everyone. I know that I can get the real deal from this newsgroup.
As of right now I believe there are few applications that can take advantage of multiple cores. But you know it's only a matter of time before they'll be here. Daddy S.Lewis wrote: "Daddy" wrote in message ... below "S.Lewis" wrote in message . .. "Daddy" wrote in message ... See below. William R. Walsh wrote: Hi! What really is the difference, if anything, between the current generation of Intel quad core processors and a 'true' quad core? I think it can be summed up pretty easily. A true quad core processor would have four fully independent cores. Each one would contain everything needed to perform as a single CPU. You could think of a system with four single processors installed. Each processor there can function on its own. In reality, I *think* that some components (like the cache) are shared between cores. Are today's Intel quad-cores a legitimate choice, or are they a 'gimmick', like hyperthreading, something to satisfy the market's demand while they work on the 'real deal'? Hyperthreading is not a gimmick per se...but it's not what it would appear to be from the outside world. A hyperthreaded processor tries to make use of functions in the CPU that would be idle while it is doing something else. It "looks" like a second processor is available, but that is not the case. The multi-core processors actually do have more than one CPU inside, but some things--possibly the cache--are shared between the CPUs. Software that can make use of multiple processors should also see a benefit from processors with multiple cores, since each one can be assigned to a different task. William Just about any currently available processor will blow smoke rings on my P4, Stew. That's not what I'm getting at. By the word 'gimmick' I meant no disrespect. For example, hyperthreading was 'sort of' like a dual core processor, but once real dual core processors arrived nobody talked about hyperthreading any more, and perhaps people who spent the extra money on a hyperthreaded processor wished they would have waited a little longer for the 'genuine article' to arrive. It's that situation I'm hoping to avoid. If I am going to justify spending the extra bucks, I don't want 'sort of' a quad core processor if the real thing is coming down the road. Instead, I'll buy a dual core now and make my /next/ computer a 'real' quad core. Am I just being silly? Daddy Nope. And consider hyper-threading to be Intel hyper-marketing. Sort of like the RDRAM/Rambus craze that lasted about 15 minutes. g Value for the buck is where I buy. I only bought the Quad because it met a certain price point at that time. I don't think we have a disagreement. lol Okay, I can accept that I'm being silly. I'll let my bang-for-the-buck-ometer be my guide. Daddy As you're configuring the system, just get the most capable CPU you can get within your sense of value. You'll notice the price premium differences when putting the system together. It's not as if there is a huge wealth of applications coded to fully utilize multi-core processors (someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think so). Additionally, I know of no (mainstream) software written to take advantage of hyperthreading. So, no. You're not being silly imo. Stew |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Should I go Dual Core or Quad Core? Intel C2 DUO E6850 vs. Quad-Core Q6600 | Bob Fry | Nvidia Videocards | 17 | January 9th 08 09:22 AM |
Should I go Dual Core or Quad Core? Intel C2 DUO E6850 vs. Quad-Core Q6600 | Bob Fry | Ati Videocards | 17 | January 9th 08 09:22 AM |
Should I go Dual Core or Quad Core? Intel C2 DUO E6850 vs. Quad-Core Q6600 | Fred | Ati Videocards | 6 | January 8th 08 12:41 PM |
Should I go Dual Core or Quad Core? Intel C2 DUO E6850 vs. Quad-Core Q6600 | Patrick Vervoorn | Nvidia Videocards | 1 | January 3rd 08 09:10 PM |
Should I go Dual Core or Quad Core? Intel C2 DUO E6850 vs. Quad-Core Q6600 | John Weiss[_2_] | Ati Videocards | 0 | January 3rd 08 08:54 PM |