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

2»

Comments

  • edited June 2006
    thanx
  • nrwilknrwilk The FTC
    edited July 2006
    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.
  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited July 2006
    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.
  • edited January 2009
    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?
  • KometeKomete Member
    edited January 2009
    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?
  • edited October 2009
    which is better and why dual core processor or quad processor?
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited October 2009
    Quad. More processing power.
  • ardichokeardichoke Icrontian
    edited October 2009
    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.
  • jbe
    edited November 2009
    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
  • edited January 2010
    i want dual core processor arichitechture and algorithms
    primesuspect
  • primesuspectprimesuspect
    waves his magic wand
    Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited January 2010
    waves his magic wand
  • ardichokeardichoke Icrontian
    edited January 2010
    * primesuspect waves his magic stick
    fixt
  • edited July 2010
    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.
  • edited July 2010
    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!
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited July 2010
    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.
  • edited October 2010
    thanku.... for the info
Sign In or Register to comment.