Forums
New posts
Articles
Product Reviews
Policies
FAQ
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Other Apple Products
Other Hardware and Peripherals
What does C2D really mean?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Kash" data-source="post: 361413" data-attributes="member: 23444"><p>To put it bluntly: yes, you're wrong.</p><p></p><p>Dual core does not mean you add the frequencies of each core (otherwise they would advertise it as 4GHz since Intel was doing great with the megahertz battle against AMD). </p><p></p><p>Dual core processors have to share system resources, which means RAM, front side bus, hard drive, etc. So this means the processor can't go twice as fast because each core only has half the resources. So yes, it'll go faster than a single core processor, but not nearly twice as fast. This is why the performance increase from the Athlon64s to the X2 processors wasn't that profound. Sure, they were faster, but marginally at best. </p><p></p><p>The reason why it seems that dual core runs so much faster is because we compare Intel's latest Conroe architecture (i.e. Core Duo) to its previous Netburst architecture (i.e. Pentium). The Netburst architecture was much slower than the current processors because of the way it was designed. A better comparison to prove that 2 cores does not equal 2x the speed would be between Intel's Core Duo and Core Solo lines as they share similar architecture.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Kash, post: 361413, member: 23444"] To put it bluntly: yes, you're wrong. Dual core does not mean you add the frequencies of each core (otherwise they would advertise it as 4GHz since Intel was doing great with the megahertz battle against AMD). Dual core processors have to share system resources, which means RAM, front side bus, hard drive, etc. So this means the processor can't go twice as fast because each core only has half the resources. So yes, it'll go faster than a single core processor, but not nearly twice as fast. This is why the performance increase from the Athlon64s to the X2 processors wasn't that profound. Sure, they were faster, but marginally at best. The reason why it seems that dual core runs so much faster is because we compare Intel's latest Conroe architecture (i.e. Core Duo) to its previous Netburst architecture (i.e. Pentium). The Netburst architecture was much slower than the current processors because of the way it was designed. A better comparison to prove that 2 cores does not equal 2x the speed would be between Intel's Core Duo and Core Solo lines as they share similar architecture. [/QUOTE]
Verification
What is Apple's smallest desktop computer called?
Post reply
Forums
Other Apple Products
Other Hardware and Peripherals
What does C2D really mean?
Top
