Dual - single core..How much faster is it?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kenny
  • Start date Start date
K

kenny

How much faster is a dual core chip compared to a single core chip of the
same speed?

I am sure its not twice as fast..
 
Intel Dual-Core Demo
http://www.intel.com/personal/desktopcomputer/dual_core/

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows - Shell/User
Microsoft Community Newsgroups
news://msnews.microsoft.com/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:

| How much faster is a dual core chip compared to a single core chip of the
| same speed?
|
| I am sure its not twice as fast..
 
For single threaded applications it would be slightly slower due to
overhead and shared resources, BUT you get some back by off loading
operating system threads to the second processor. Full up load them
both, 50-70% better system thruput. Remember the HD and memory is shared.
 
I have an Athlon X2 4800. With this chip, I am capable of running Half Life
2, encode a movie, run my antivirus with no hiccups. I know I haven't fully
realize the full potential of this chip either. No regrets here with dual
core.
 
I chuckled at this, since Intel dual core procs are two cores fused into a
single package, but are not true dual core. Intel dual cores cannot see
each other and can only communicate through the Northbridge chip.

AMD dual core processors are built as dual core and have the crossbar for on
die communication at 2000MHz.

In a recent test, AMD dual core thoroughly trounced the Intel dual core
wanna-be;

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7-6389077-1.html

quote:


It wasn't even close.

After reading the round-by-round account of our dual-core desktop CPU
prizefight, it should come as no shock that AMD's Athlon 64 X2 chips are the
runaway victors here, laying out the Intel Pentium D and Pentium Extreme
Edition 840 chips pins up. If we had to call out one chip, AMD's Athlon 64
X2 4400+ is an outstanding bargain given the competition, but as our results
show, any AMD dual-core CPU will serve you better than its similarly priced
Intel equivalent.

If you're wondering why there's such a striking performance difference
between the two companies' processors, it likely has something to do with
the memory controller. Among the technological differences between the two,
AMD's memory controller--the component that sends information back and forth
between your system's CPU and the memory--is an integrated part of the
Athlon 64 X2's chip architecture. Intel's memory controller, however, exists
as a separate piece of silicon on the motherboard. The additional distance
between the CPU and the memory controller adds to the processing lag time
and likely plays a part in Intel's lower scores.

Moral of the story....AMD is the only choice.

Sad to watch Intel, the once mighty giant, stumble about.

Bobby
 
Kenny;

You;ll be better off posting about the AMD X2, which outperforms the Pentium
D in every test (see my earlier post). The Intel chip is two procs fused
together, but is not a true dual core.

Bobby
 
Legality?


--
******************************************************
Most learned on these newsgroups
Tumppi, Helsinki, FINLAND
(translations from/to FI not always accurate)
******************************************************
 
A link towards an external site is legal. I did not say I would copy the
content and place it on my site.
 
Although AMD may have a head start at the moment, there is no doubt in my
mind that they will be left behind in the multiprocessor war that is about
to begin.
 
You are hopelessly a slave to Intel. You will lose. AMD is at least 2
years ahead of Intel in the dual core field, and Intel can't even build a
true dual core (see previous posts in this thread). Keep throwing your
money into the pit and buy Intel. Meanwhile, those that have functioning
brain cells will buy AMD.

Bobby
 
I am not a slave of no one. If I see that AMD chips are better in about 8
months (when I will do the next upgrade) I will get an AMD...

I am not talking about the next year.. but farther into the future.

There is a big war starting.. and you have no idea about it.

This is the WAR of multiple CPUs, and its all about scalability.

We are going to see things like 16, 32 and 64 cpus on one chip, even more in
the future.

There are OS's even now that can handle that number of CPUs.

So does AMD have the resources to follow this battle?

Intel has the power to promote this scalability far more than AMD can...
even if at this point AMD might seem like it has the upper hand, I think
this
is just a temporary illusion.
 
Consider the following:

1. Direct Connect Architecture: AMD - Yes Intel - No
2. On-Die Memory Controller: AMD - Yes, Intel - No
3. Hypertransport Bus: AMD - Yes, Intel - No
4. System Crossbar: AMD - Yes, Intel - No
5. Separate L2 Cache dedicated to each processor: AMD - Yes, Intel - No
6. On-Die System Request Interface: AMD - Yes, Intel - No
7. True dual core design: AMD - Yes, Intel - No

Intel is at least two years behind, and without on-die memory controller and
Hypertransport, it will be no faster than current single core Intel procs.

The only advantage that Intel has is the ability to obfuscate and lie, which
is why they are being sued.

It will be several years before Intel can once again be competitive on the
x64 and dual core world. As long as they continue to build on the
antiquated P4/Northbridge chipset scenario, they will forever lag behind
AMD.

Don't get me wrong...I used to be one of the most hard-core Intel fan
boys around, until one day I realized they had stopped being innovative.

Before your nervous twitch causes you to respond to this, take some time to
answer the following questions:

1. Each new generation of Intel processor (Presler being the latest), the
core frequency is getting *SLOWER*. Why?

2. Why is it that every test and review that compares AMD to Intel, AMD
wins?

3. Why is it that AMD has been out-selling Intel since September?

4. Why do gamers build on AMD X2 or FX chips, and not on Intel?


I can only pray that someday you will realize that Intel has allowed itself
to become an also-ran.
While it is sad to see a once mighty giant stumble and fall, it does happen.
David has beaten Goliath, and rightfully so. If Intel had taken the
initiative in 2001 to develop 64 bit processors and the associated
subsystems the way that AMD did, then Intel would still be king. But Intel
got fat and lazy, thinking that they could engineer netburst to 7 MHz, and
could continue building chips on the antiquated P4 technology. It came back
to bite them on the butt. Meanwhile, AMD has been developing it's line of
processors, Hypertranport, etc. Do the math. Be objective. If you are as
intelligent as you seem to be, you will see that you are betting on the
wrong horse. Even Intel's
deep pockets won't get them out of this.

Bobby

kenny said:
I am not a slave of no one. If I see that AMD chips are better in about 8
months (when I will do the next upgrade) I will get an AMD...

I am not talking about the next year.. but farther into the future.

There is a big war starting.. and you have no idea about it.

This is the WAR of multiple CPUs, and its all about scalability.

We are going to see things like 16, 32 and 64 cpus on one chip, even more
in the future.

There are OS's even now that can handle that number of CPUs.

So does AMD have the resources to follow this battle?

Intel has the power to promote this scalability far more than AMD can...
even if at this point AMD might seem like it has the upper hand, I think
this
is just a temporary illusion.
Click to expand...
 
Consider the following:
Click to expand...

Many motherboards with Intel based CPU's have less problems related to
the third-party chipsets than the AMD units. It's not always just the
CPU that is a reason for purchasing a Motherboard, sometimes you need to
consider the entire package, not just the CPU.
 
I don't think too many people would dispute that AMD's dual core CPUs
outperform Intel's. The problem with AMD is they don't have the
manufacturing capability to keep up with Intel once they both start
manufacturing multi core (4, 8, 16 core) CPUs. Intel has stated that their
strategy is to introduce multicore ASAP in order to outpace AMD's capacity.
They are prepared to sell multicore CPU's for the same price as last year's
single core. If a factory can produce x single core CPUs per month then it's
half that for dual core, 1/4 for quad core etc. AMD is already almost maxed
out now even with their new plant. Intel has the capability to flood the
market with multi core and the advertising budget to force AMD to move to
multicore before they have the manufacturing capability. Performance has
nothing to do with their plan. It's all a strategy to decrease AMD's market
share. And people complain Microsoft doesn't play fair :-)

Kerry
 
But Intel's Dual- and Multi-Core processors are not built as
multi-core...they simply fuse more than one core together. They cannot see
each other, cannot communicate directly on-die, and must go through the
Northbridge chip to communicate. It is another example of Intel using smoke
and mirrors to fool the buying public, the majority of which believe what
Intel claims.

FWIW, I will stick with AMD, who does make true dual- and multi-core chips.

I am intelligent enough not to fall for the obfuscation that Intel
peddles...


Bobby
 
I am intelligent enough not to fall for the obfuscation that Intel
peddles...
Click to expand...

But are you intelligent enough to find a motherboard with a quality
chipset by a vendor that invested enough into it so that you end up with
a extremely stable combination of CPU/Chipset/Motherboard/Memory
controller, so that you have a very stable platform?
 
Yes... I agree... When I was talking about the capability of Intel I was
talking about all that, which you correctly state, and the fact that Intel
controls the market. I have no objection on AMD chips and I might get one if
its cheaper
and faster in the next 8 months, but in the long run I think Intel will
dominate (again).
Indeed there has been a slag on computer speed performance, because they ran
into the temperature barrier. But now with the multi CPU thing going on, I
think they will recoil.
With everyone moving towards broadband, optical disks that will reach 300 gb
each, High definition video... I see no alternative. People WANT all these
things, and if there is a market, there will be advancements.

We must not forget Moore's (co founder of Intel) Law.
http://www.intel.com/technology/silicon/mooreslaw/

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/M/Moores_Law.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law

this implies that within 30-50 years computers will become more intelligent
than human beings.

Who is is most probable and capable of making the first artificial brain?
AMD or INTEL?

Kenny www.computerboom.com
 
Back
Top