If geeks love it, we’re on it

Dual Core Processing: Over-simplified, demystified and explained.

Dual Core Processing: Over-simplified, demystified and explained.

Also now on Icrontic: Quad Core Processing

The latest buzz in the processor industry is about dual core processors. AMD may be the first to take the limelight with their announcement of dual core AMD Opteron processors set to launch in mid-2005 but Intel and IBM are cueing up their dual core processors as well.

A dual core processor is exactly what it sounds like. It is two processor cores on one die essentially like having a dual processor system in one processor. AMD’s Opteron processor has been dual processor capable since its inception. Opteron was designed with an extra HyperTransport link. The relevance of it was mostly overlooked. HyperTransport Technology simply means a faster connection that is able to transfer more data between two chips. This does not mean that the chip itself is faster. It means that the capability exists via the HyperTransport pathway for one chip to “talk” to another chip or device at a faster speed and with greater data throughput.

We knew that HyperTransport Technology would provide for a faster connection to system memory, the GPU and the rest of the motherboard but back in the fall of 2003 we thought of the extra HyperTransport link as a connection to another physical processor.

AMD hypertransport diagram

It didn’t dawn on us that the “extra” processor could be on the same die. While some will say “I knew that” most didn’t pick up on it.

AMD have the added punch of being able to drop their dual core Opteron processors into existing 940-pin sockets. This upgrade path is extremely favorable as all it will require is a processor swap and, perhaps, a BIOS update.

Intel are continuing with their Pentium 4 cores by releasing two flavors codenamed Paxville and Dempsey. The codenames will very likely change once the marketing department gets their hands on it as “Introducing the new Dempsey” has a very lackluster ring to it.

MAC orientated Think Secret posted IBM plans on the PowerPC 970MP codenamed Antares and rumored to clock in at 3GHz with a 1GHz EI (Elastic Interface) bus.

The horses are now in the paddock. AMD, INTEL and MAC loyalists are beginning to group at the fence to eye up their favorite and the competition. The post parade is still a ways off and with post time now set at mid-2005 it’s anybody’s guess who will be out of the gate first.

Why dual core?

Why the shift to dual core and how will this impact the gigahertz performance race? Who or what will dual core processing benefit and will it be sought after by enthusiasts or left buried deep inside the dark recesses of server rooms?

The broad brush paints a processor as a device that executes a series of instructions to tell it what to do which, in turn, tells everything else it interacts with what to do. The faster it can do this the better. “Faster” can be directly related to clock speed but don’t make the mistake of thinking that INTEL’s higher clock speeds make it “faster” than AMD.

Both AMD and INTEL scaled up the clock speeds of their processors in a very short amount of time but have recently slowed the curve. AMD moved from the 1GHz “Thunderbird” to the Athlon64 FX53 in In a little less than 4 years which is impressive considering from 1997 until 2000 the K6 processor family saw a mere 4-500 MHz clock speed increase.

It is the flattening of the clock speed curve that some are reasoning why a shift to dual core. Some have surmised that AMD and INTEL have hit clock speed walls and another route is being taken to continue the performance curve and stay top of mind with new product releases. The problem with winding up clock speeds is heat. At present the processor engine can operate at only so much RPM before the engine will seize. Heat is the enemy of any processor and high clock speeds mean high heat and that means errors. A Windows PC running at 10GHz isn’t much good if it can’t make it past booting up before crashing.

That heat comes from power. It takes a lot of juice to crank up a processor to high clock speeds and a processor with that much electricity running around the die is prone to noise. It’s not audible noise like a high RPM cooling fan but electrical noise otherwise akin to interference. The pathways on a processor are microscopically close together. The more power that runs through these pathways due to the requirement of higher clock speeds means that there will be a small amount of electrical radiation from one pathway to the next. That leakage could corrupt the data in another pathway. Corrupted data means errors which means a program could get cranky.

Think of it like a hot element on a stove. A hand can be placed fairly close with the burner on low. Turn the burner up to high and it get’s pretty uncomfortable to keep a hand at the same distance it was when the burner was on low. It may even burn a hand. The radiated heat from the burner “corrupts” the hand resulting in a burn. In a processor the thermal heat is an issue but it’s also the electrical noise like a radio station that isn’t quite tuned in. The data is “dirty” and the song isn’t clear enough to understand.

Are two cores better than one?

There will most likely be three terms that come up to fuel the dual core debate; pipeline, cache and bus.

This is the most basic of explanations of what a processor pipeline is. First the data instruction set is needed.

01_pipeline_data

A processor loads instructions into the pipeline. Think of the pipeline like a conveyor belt. The data is processed sequentially one after another.

02_pipeline_datas

The AMD processor pipeline is shorter than the INTEL processor pipeline and this is one of the reasons why AMD runs at a lower clock speed.
Pipelining, like most things in life, is good in moderation. Making a processor’s pipeline too short causes a longer minimum clock period which hinders the manufacturer’s ability to ramp up the clock speed. Making the pipeline very long allows faster clock speeds however it also increases the cost of stalls and flushes which negatively affects performance and also increases the amount of resources required to pipeline the processor.

This is discussed in-depth in Icrontic’s Pipelining Explained article.

A shorter pipeline means that more work has to be done in the pipeline per clock cycle thus the clock speed cannot be as high compared to a processor with a longer pipeline. However, with a shorter pipeline, the data gets through it faster thus balancing the equation. This is one of the reasons why an AMD processor can compete with higher clocked INTEL processors.

03_amd_intel_data

Data that that is continually used in preparation for the pipeline is stored in the processor’s cache and a processor is smart enough to anticipate what data it may require.

04_dataincache

If the processor needs to reach outside of the cache then it does so through the bus to system RAM. Now remember that the processor cache is running at the same clock speed as the processor itself. If it is a 2 GHz processor then the speed limit on the highway between cache and the rest of the processor is 2GHz. If the processor has to reach out through the bus to main system memory then it must slow down to that bus speed. A bus speed of 400 MHz is five times slower than the 2 GHz example.

In layman’s terms think of the processor as a carpenter. The carpenter’s truck is system memory and the cache are the tools he’s packed into the house for the job. The carpenter has anticipated what tools he may need to do the job. If the tool is not at hand then he must go back to the truck to get the right tool thus slowing down the job at hand.

Putting it all together

Two pairs of hands make the work go faster. This is quite true in computers with dual processors especially with SMP (Symmetric Multiprocessing) software. Not all software is SMP aware. In fact only a small percentage of it is. SMP capability is something that must be written into the code. The program must know that it can utilize two processors to complete processes simultaneously. This is known as multithreading.

A dual core processor is between a single core processor and a dual processor system for architecture. A dual core processor has two cores but will share some of the other hardware like the memory controller and bus. A dual processor system has completely separate hardware and shares nothing with the other processor.

A dual core processor won’t be twice as fast as a single core processor nor will it be as fast as a dual processor system.

It will fall somewhere in the middle but there are going to be specific advantages.

There will be two pipelines and that means there can be two sets of instructions being carried out simultaneously.

05_two_pipelines

There will also be two processor caches to keep more of the necessary “tools” or data on the processor die for faster access.

The trick will be the bus. If everyone wants on the bus at the same time then there will be the Keystone Cops comedy of errors as everyone tries to squeeze through the door at the same time. The two processor cores have to be designed to be smart enough to “wait” for the other to finish accessing the bus.

Now all of this is happening at the nanosecond level so don’t think there’s time for a coffee. Nanosecond wait states means there’s not even enough time to THINK about thinking about having a coffee.

To SMP or not to SMP?

The processor engineers have probably already thought about tackling the SMP situation. What good is a dual core processor if the software only recognizes and then uses only one of the cores? The majority of software is not written to utilize multithreading at present. This breaks open a whole new can of worms in concepts of parallel computing.

Intel’s Hyper-Threading is a single processor logical variation of dual core processors. AMD has just taken it one step further with two physical cores on one processor die. Could AMD’s engineers have cracked the hardware problem of a dual core processor and load balancing a program that isn’t written for multithreading?

This is where dual core processors could fall short of expectations for mainstream users. If the software cannot “see” the second processor then it will not benefit from it. Programs, such as Adobe Photoshop, are SMP aware and are much faster on a dual processor system. There is no doubt that a program like Photoshop will be much faster on a dual core system than its single core counterpart. The majority of operating systems do recognize and support at least two processors. There is some load balancing of non-SMP applications but not as efficiently as those written for multithreading.

The bottom line…for now

The benefit will come for users who multitask. As in a dual processor system there is a second processor core to share the load either in balanced form or by itself. If one processor is busy burning a DVD then the second is available to, I don’t know, bake bread. The point is there are now two pairs of processor hands to execute multiple tasks simultaneously.

For the home enthusiast it mean less processor hiccups while playing DOOM III and, at the same time, burning a DVD or listening to music.

Dual core processors brings a whole new twist to server environments. Dual or quad servers based on the 940-pin Opteron processor may be on the road to some staggering performance results. AMD recently demonstrated a 4-socket HP ProLiant DL585 server powered by 4 dual core Opteron processors. Think about it. That’s like 8 processors for the price of four. It boggles the mind to think of dual core on an 8-way system.

For the processor manufacturer dual core means a less expensive route to producing a new product that continues the performance curve. The PR Rating numbers will be interesting. A dual core Opteron that has two 2.4 GHz cores won’t be classified as a 3800+, for example, or twice that at a 7600+. Since AMD dual core processors are going to be released in the 940-pin flavor first then it will be an FX. Most likely the FX-57 which brings up the question of “where’d FX-55 go?”

Nevertheless there will be the performance increase and getting the consumers head wrapped around dual core as better will be a challenge. The public believes that two processors are better than one but also expensive. There are two processors (or more) to buy, a multi-processor motherboard, special RAM and so on. With dual core processor technology there isn’t the added cost of a second physical processor. The manufacturing process is very close to single core cost so, it is hoped, that the dual core processor won’t have a shocking sticker price. It will, obviously, be more as the newest and fastest always does cost more but it has to be less than the total of two comparable Opteron processors.

Dual core processors will also be hard to slot into the gigahertz realm of public comprehension. Does “Two 2.4 GHz cores” sound slower or faster than the same processor described as a “3.6 GHz comparable”? It’s for certain that the two core clock speeds won’t be combined for a gigahertz rating but a comparable gigahertz rating will be assigned for those still stuck comparing which number is bigger in the gigahertz wars.

Bottom line it’s what we’ve been saying for a year now. It’s the mushroom effect. For AMD it isn’t so much about do it faster….it’s about do more of it faster.

AMD must be feeling smug by now because many had foretold of the end of the 940-pin era for the desktop and workstation. Opteron indeed is alive and well for the server but it will again be heard roaring in the enthusiast and desktop market.

More on AMD and dual-core processors at the AMD website.

Comments

  1. -Ben
    -Ben gimme gimme gimme
  2. Unregistered
    Unregistered MediaMan, i would like to give my most sincere thanks for an absolutely fantastic article. Me and a few of my friends here at Shell ( UK ) are really interested in the upcoming dual core technology. The difference between you and other reviewers is that you explained things so smoothly.

    Many thanks.

    James.
  3. TheBaron
    TheBaron I love the gimme icon :D
  4. MediaMan
    MediaMan James,

    Thank you for the comment. I hope you keep poking about our site.

    Interpreting the crystal ball on this technology is one part science and one part darts. My crystal ball sees dual core as indeed a performance increase. That's a given with any new processor product at the top of its line.

    When you look at it from a consumer cost point of view it begins to make a bit of sense. It's ideal for workstation users who have a desire for a bit more "horsepower" than a single processor system but don't have/want to spend more $ for a dual processor system.

    Dual core brings some of the benefits of a dual processor system at less than the cost of a 2P system with the two of the same processor equivalents.

    Remember that it's not so much about flat out dragstrip speed anymore. A dragster isn't much good at towing your boat down the highway. It's more about having that big truck with the towing power...that can keep up with the dragster or at least give it a good run for its money.

    For server environments it's the same way of thinking. Many run dual processor servers but would really like a 4P server to really go to town. But then there's that cost factor. A dual core system can bump them up between a 2P and 4P system for some aspects of performance (increased multitasking) but without that cost.

    For those with oodles of money? Imagine a 4P or an 8P system with dual core processors...that would translate up to a psuedo 8P or 16P system. Interesting if anyone tries to make an 8P dual core system actually work...just for the heck of it.

    Bottom line dual core isn't exactly the same as a two physical processor system but it's better at some things than a single processor system. On launch this is more a product for working rather than playing...

    In time...it'll become more affordable for us enthusiasts then we'll play too!
  5. QCH
    QCH WOW MediaMan... Great article. Clear and very well written.
  6. MediaMan
  7. Unregistered
    Unregistered Good article, but one thing: In AMD's Dual Core implementation the cores are NOT linked together using HyperTransport. They uses a more direct coupling called SRQ (System Request Queue). The advantage is that cache coherencey updates between the cores are much faster. I.e. AMD's dual core implementation is no different to it's single core cousin with respect to HyperTransport/crossbar/memory-controller. Of course Hypertransport-Links can be used to extend the system with further CPUs, but that is a differnent story.


  8. Unregistered
    Unregistered Good article! The best is that it explains things in a way that you don't need to be an engineer or a mathematic professor to understand most of it :)
    I usually understand most of more advanced articles, but why make it more complicated then necesary? :)

    I wouldn't be to suprised if AMD releases dualcore versions of their Opteron 1XX, Opteron 2XX and Opteron 8XX CPU,s in 2005 and not just for the heck of it. A system with 8 dualcore Opteron 8XX CPU's would ofcourse be 16 cores in total.

    But I don't think Socket940 will be big in the enthusiast market. Sure some will ofcourse get it, just like there are allready some enthusiasts that have Dual Pentium III/Athlon MP/Xeon/Opteron systems. But I think most enthusiast will get dual core Socket939 Athlons, that probobly will be released in late 2005.
    Some may want/need ECC memory and get Socket940 instead or need more then one dualcore processor for the specialized personal use, but I think the Socket939 platform will be more popular.

    The one who lives will see.
  9. MediaMan
    MediaMan
    But I don't think Socket940 will be big in the enthusiast market. Sure some will ofcourse get it, just like there are allready some enthusiasts that have Dual Pentium III/Athlon MP/Xeon/Opteron systems. But I think most enthusiast will get dual core Socket939 Athlons, that probobly will be released in late 2005.
    Some may want/need ECC memory and get Socket940 instead or need more then one dualcore processor for the specialized personal use, but I think the Socket939 platform will be more popular.


    Funny thing about enthusiasts...we all look for the best deal and sometimes whine about the high cost...but tally up what we actually spend on the entire box. It'll be much more than the average user. We're funny that way.

    You are on target that Socket 940 will not be as popular with the enthusiast. Socket 940 wasn't designed for the enthusiast really. Socket 939 is better suited first and foremost because of its ability to use "normal" memory rather than the more expensive REG ECC.

    Think of Socket 940 more for the performance workstation. It's a lot of horsepower with the benefits that pertain to ECC REG memory.

    By coming out with a BIG impressive Socket 940 FX processor...it grabs the headlines. It says "Hey...look at AMD!". Then AMD can follow up with other products once they have the attention of the readers.

    It's the same philosophy as having a loss leader item on sale at a store. The loss leader item brings shoppers in. Very few of them may purchase it but they are in the store...they'll most likely pick up other things while they are there.

    :)
  10. Unregistered
    Unregistered
    Funny thing about enthusiasts...we all look for the best deal and sometimes whine about the high cost...but tally up what we actually spend on the entire box. It'll be much more than the average user. We're funny that way.

    Yes, it's not getting from A to B that mathers, it's how much fun you had getting there that counts :P
    That statement works somewhat better when you look at cars and motorcycles then computers, but computers can be fun to ;)

    By coming out with a BIG impressive Socket 940 FX processor...it grabs the headlines. It says "Hey...look at AMD!". Then AMD can follow up with other products once they have the attention of the readers.

    Yes, AMD allready do Socket939 version of Athlon 64 FX though. But a Opteron 2XX system will still be nice. If you get that when dualcore gets out that means 4 cores instead, not to shabby :)
  11. Unregistered
    Unregistered MediaMan, great work man.

    I've just finished my English homework, we were supposed to find an interesting article and write a summary of it, and of course, I chose this yours.

    Keep up the good work.

    /SpinBoy
  12. Unregistered
    Unregistered I think you should title your page, AMD Hype.
  13. Thrax
    Thrax Or not, because AMD announced dual-core CPUs first, and that's what the article is based on. :rolleyes:
  14. Unregistered
    Unregistered Acid-

    I believe that this is one of the best non-biased articles I have ever read pertaining to processor technology. Bravo.
  15. ronbo
    ronbo MediaMan, I think you missed your calling. You should have been a school teacher. With a article that well written even the class clowns would get an "A" on their exam....bloody good m8..
  16. Unregistered
    Unregistered IBM have had a dual core server chip out for years, so saying that AMD engineers have "cracked" anything is perhaps innaccurate, all they have done is brought the option of a dual core cpu down to the pc level.
  17. mmonnin
    mmonnin And thats what matters to us now isnt it.
  18. Unregistered
    Unregistered I don't understand how an app (e.g. Photoshop) could take advantage of an SMP. I mean, doesn't the OS "shield" the hardware from the apps? Applicantions are not supposed to know about whether it is a uniprocessor, an SMP, or a dual-core, right? And what if the app knows it's SMP or dual-core, but the OS doesn't support SMP or dual core? Is it possible? Thx.
  19. Unregistered
    Unregistered sorry that i have to make a comment about 64 bit processors here, because there is no 'comment' feature in the "64-bit simplified" article.
    What on earth is a 64-bit processor? Does it mean 64-bit data bus? 64-bit control bus? 64-bit registers? 64-bit everything?
  20. Thrax
    Thrax
    I don't understand how an app (e.g. Photoshop) could take advantage of an SMP. I mean, doesn't the OS "shield" the hardware from the apps? Applicantions are not supposed to know about whether it is a uniprocessor, an SMP, or a dual-core, right? And what if the app knows it's SMP or dual-core, but the OS doesn't support SMP or dual core? Is it possible? Thx.

    The OS doesn't do any more shielding from apps these days than buffer overflow protection with the NX/EDB bits on Intel/AMD processors. Applications, the OS, and the hardware is designed to let the application know if SMP exists explicitly for the purpose of taking advantage of it. Applications are most certainly supposed to know. Additionally, if the OS doesn't support SMP, the application has no idea -- it's all fed directly from the OS.
    sorry that i have to make a comment about 64 bit processors here, because there is no 'comment' feature in the "64-bit simplified" article.
    What on earth is a 64-bit processor? Does it mean 64-bit data bus? 64-bit control bus? 64-bit registers? 64-bit everything?

    In computers, a 64-bit processor is one in which data is processed and/or stored in 64-bit chunks. The term often refers to the size of the CPU's registers that holds memory adddresses and other data, as well as the arithmetic logic unit that operates on those registers to compute. Busses have been varying widths for ages, with the Athlon XP being a 32 bit CPU with a 64 bit bus (Twin 32 bit pipelines) -- the Athlon 64 has a 64 bit memory-to-CPU bus, and a hypertransport bus which is CPU-to-chipset and it's 16bit bi-directional. A computer architecture described as "64-bit" generally has integer registers that are 64 bits wide and thus directly supports dealing both internally and externally with 64-bit "chunks" of data.

    Bus widths don't count in the equation.
  21. Unregistered
    Unregistered if more info needed i will register
  22. Unregistered
    Unregistered Nice article, very informative.
  23. Unregistered
    Unregistered gimme gimme gimme !!!
    Great article, Thanks!
  24. Unregistered
    Unregistered I do have a question ! Will these processers be more ESD sensitive that
    the commonly used ?? Will special precautions have to be taken ?
    JG
  25. MediaMan
    MediaMan For those who may not understand the previous poster's question;

    ESD = Electro Static Discharge.

    ESD is a term most commonly used when handling/transporting electronic equipment such as microprocessors. I would imagine that the dual core processor would be handled with the same precautions as a single core processor. The ESD risk would be the same.
  26. Unregistered
    Unregistered Excellent! Excellent! Excellent!
  27. Sledgehammer70
    Sledgehammer70 Wow this came out of the wood works...
  28. Thank you so much for putting together such a great article. This is the best explanation I ever got about the dual-core technology so far, and, finally, I start to understand how things work.
  29. thanks man
    i learnt a lot!
  30. nrwilk
    nrwilk Awesome breakdown!

    Quick question:

    I saw some computers advertised on ebay with intel core duo procs. The seller claimed the the Ghz rating applied to each core, making a dual-core 2.0Ghz chip actually clock at a total speed of 4Ghz all together.

    Is this anywhere near true? Seems oversimplified to me.
  31. primesuspect
    primesuspect It's not true. The cpu still clocks at 2ghz. The seller is using pseudoscientific fakery to make the thing sound better than it is. That is not to say that a dual core 2.0ghz is a slouch. It is a cutting edge machine. The seller should be more honest - that thing could sell itself without relying on that kind of bullcrap.
  32. Britton
    Britton Yes that is a great article for sure. I just got this laptop and its dual core. An Athlon X64 running at 1.9Ghz and believe me I know what you mean about the heat issue. A 10Ghz processor would probably melt the casing on the laptop. This cpu is only 1.9Ghz but when I play games like Sacred 2: Fallen Angel it makes the case get almost untouchable. I don't have the spare money right now to buy a cooling pad for it. So I just use the small desk fan I have and place it near it at an angle that seems to keep it cool. I guess overclocking it out of the question. :)

    The one thing I am unclear on is: Does the dual cores actually help my programs run faster or is only one of the two cores processing the data for an individual program. Also since each core isn't independently running at 1.9Ghz a piece (making it 2.9ghz over all) then does that mean there only running at 955mhz each?
  33. Komete
    Komete Wow, you just revived a 3 year old thread ;D

    If a program is optimized to run on dual cores, than yes your aplication will see a boost. If it isn't, you won't in that one application. However, having dual cores allows you to multitask better and faster because while one cpu is busy running one or two applications the second one is free to run others. It doesn't always work out like that but it is the goal.

    Just put it this way, having more than one cpu decreases the likelihood your hole pc has to slow down because it is being maxed out.

    And they both are running at 1.9ghz but you bios may throttle cpu speed up and down as needed.

    Britton wrote:
    Yes that is a great article for sure. I just got this laptop and its dual core. An Athlon X64 running at 1.9Ghz and believe me I know what you mean about the heat issue. A 10Ghz processor would probably melt the casing on the laptop. This cpu is only 1.9Ghz but when I play games like Sacred 2: Fallen Angel it makes the case get almost untouchable. I don't have the spare money right now to buy a cooling pad for it. So I just use the small desk fan I have and place it near it at an angle that seems to keep it cool. I guess overclocking it out of the question. :)

    The one thing I am unclear on is: Does the dual cores actually help my programs run faster or is only one of the two cores processing the data for an individual program. Also since each core isn't independently running at 1.9Ghz a piece (making it 2.9ghz over all) then does that mean there only running at 955mhz each?
  34. CyberKing419
    CyberKing419 which is better and why dual core processor or quad processor?
  35. Thrax
    Thrax Quad. More processing power.
  36. ardichoke
    ardichoke Debatable. Right now few things utilize quad core processors to the fullest. If you're debating between a quad and dual core running the same speed, yes, get the quad. If you're debating between a slower quad core or one with less cache and a faster dual core or more cache it may be worthwhile to get the faster/more cache dual core processor.
  37. jbe
    jbe You're leaving out way too much.

    First of all, the pipeline is just a cache of scheduled instructions. This means that a long pipeline yields high performance, only when the pipe is full of instructions that are actually usable at time of execution.

    It's hard to explain, but I'll give it a try.

    While processing instructions, it's important to always have a next instruction ready to execute. Feeding instructions (through the pipeline) to the CPU synchronously, makes it perform at optimal speed.
    Some instructions have a clear outcome as to what the next instruction will be. Hence, these instructions are "injected" in the pipe. The instructions in the pipe, are executed immediately after the CPU has finished its current "job" (instruction).
    However, lots of instructions are not statically predictable. So, processing architectures use a technique, which is known under many names, let's call it prediction.
    When the next instruction to be performed, is predicted correctly, it will be executed without any loss of clock ticks. Hence, in theory, when prediction is 100% correct, every MHz counts as more speed.
    Relating this back to the length of the pipeline.
    When a prediction is not correct, the complete pipeline is discarded. After all, when an instruction somewhere in the pipe is not relevant anymore, the instructions that follow, aren't either.
    So, as you can guess, having a 31 instructions length pipe, will only give great results when prediction is correct. Ultimately, when prediction is 100% correct, every clock tick is optimally used. However, when a prediction is incorrect, the whole pipe has to be discarded. Off course, it has to be filled again as well.

    See, for instance, the architecture of the IBM PowerPC G5 (used in the older Macs). A RISC processor with an extremely long pipeline. Anyone who has used one of these, will have noticed how some applications performed incredibly fast and some others just didn't perform at all. It all has to do with the way they were compiled and how predictable the instructions were.

    I'm leaving it at this. The only thing I have left to say, is a reaction to the following line.


    Now remember that the processor cache is running at the same clock speed as the processor itself.


    Only the L1 cache, L2 is slower, L3, even more!

    Cheers,
    Jan
  38. jyothi
    jyothi i want dual core processor arichitechture and algorithms
  39. primesuspect
    primesuspect /me waves his magic wand
  40. ardichoke
    ardichoke
    * primesuspect waves his magic stick
    fixt
  41. TheDude=)
    TheDude=) I just got a dual core 2.5GHz just wondering if because its 'dual core' does that mean that it's actually boosted upto 5GHz? It's Inspiron 530s 2.5GHz 320 HHD. Thanks.
  42. TheDude=)
    TheDude=) And i would also like to know how much heat it will give off? I have 2 fans inside, I want it for gaming and running a few applications Anti virus ect. Thanks again!
  43. Thrax
    Thrax No, it isn't 5GHz. It's basically two processors operating in parallel at 2.5GHz. Consider it like two pickups carrying 2500 pounds a piece, rather than one pickup dragging 5000 pounds. You're likely to get the whole 5000 pounds from point A to B with two trucks over one.

    The Inspiron is adequately cooled.
  44. Mudassar Nazar
    Mudassar Nazar thanku.... for the info

Howdy, Stranger!

You found the friendliest gaming & tech geeks around. Say hello!