I'm making myself look a fool but I have to ask

[Nulla Pax]

Something occured to me the other day.

Is a dual core CPU rated as each cores size or their combined size ?

I mean, is a Dual core 4000 actually two 4000's or two 2000's

If you switched from a single 3000 to a dual 4000 that was really two 2000's then wouldn't you notice a drop in performance if what you were running was only using one core ?

Yes I'm bored and yes I'm taking it out on you all with my rambelings but I honestly don't know the answer to this one.

I assume it must be two 4000's but knowing advertising departments to be what they are I just can't see them calling 2 x 4000's a 4000. :worship:

 

[FarFarAway]

There's loads of reviews about this.

Basically a dual core is 2 x individual cores.

The Dual Core versions are very slightly slower, but I mean very in single threaded apps. Basically their the same as 2 x single cores

 

[Dav0s]

but they arent double the speed because most apps only utilise one of the cores.

hence allowing you to do 2 normal tasks, at normal speed, not 1 normal task at double speed

 

[Nulla Pax]

So a Dual core 4000 is actually two 4000's but they would be Skodas of the chip world rather than Ferraris.

Fair enough - cheers :wavey:

 

[FarFarAway]

Ye but who cares...overclocking potential ftw

 

[TJS]

I don't know what a 'Skoda' is, but dual core cpu's are the same as two single core cpu's, just under one hood... so yes, it would be 2x4000. Another thing to pay attention too considering cpu's is the L1/L2/L3 cache (if it has L3), more is better.

And ramble away, brotha... I do it too! (gives people something to read...)

TJS

 

[llwyd]

I don't know what a 'Skoda' is, but dual core cpu's are the same as two single core cpu's, just under one hood... so yes, it would be 2x4000. Another thing to pay attention too considering cpu's is the L1/L2/L3 cache (if it has L3), more is better.

And ramble away, brotha... I do it too! (gives people something to read...)

TJS

Skoda is a crappy car manufacturer (used to be crappy anyway) and the Cache thing is not necessarily true, more cache can hinder the performance (speed more than anything, high cache is good for the likes of server CPUs) of the chip. Faster cache with shorter access routes and what-not is preferable over large amounts. Although the rules are slightly different with dual core because you obviously have double the cache

 

[TJS]

Hey, you just provided me with my 'learned something new every day', it's all good! I just remember when Intel first came out with it's Extreme Edition CPU's (in retaliation to AMD's FX-51) that they had a doubled or heckuva lot more L2 cache than the normal cpu... I may have just read into it.