Dual Core - A few questions.

D

Drunken Pirate

Geek Trainee
Hello,

Thanks for spending your time on my questions. I appreciate any and all help and answers that anyone can provide. I would just like to say "Thank you" in advanced to everyone.

I enjoy looking at all the new computer parts that have come out recently, although I usually try to wait a few months when the products have come down in price, but are still worth buying. I recently began getting interested in Intel Dual Core Processors. (Here is an example of a reasonably priced one.)

I just had a few questions that I would like to know before I add the product to my "Buy Later" list.

  1. The operating frequency is listed as 3.0GHz on the processor I listed above. Does that mean that there are two 3.0GHz "cores" in the proccessor, or possibly two 1.5Ghz "cores" in the processor?
  2. Do you for see the adoption of dual core processors in the future? The last proccessor I bought was a 64-Bit processor, and, well lets just say I was sorely disappointed with the lack of 64-Bit support from developers, etc.
  3. Intel is going through some major "Reorganization". I don't think that they are going belly up anytime soon, but it is a consideration. Would AMD Dual Core alternatives be a better choice?

Thanks again for your time. I appreciate all and any help.
 
1) It means you'll have 2 physical 3.0GHz Processing Cores in each CPU.

2) As we reach the 'cap' for speed the way to go will be more cores, currently not much software utilises both cores at the same time but having 2 cores allows you to multi-task better than with a single core CPU as each core can work at the same time.

3) Intel will be the way to go with Dual Core soon, what with Conroe (Core 2) coming out there's major improvements in performance.
 
Thanks a lot. Since Dual Core seems to be catching on better than 64-Bit, then buying a Dual Core seems like a good idea. Plus, unlike 64-Bit, Dual Core is useful even if your application doesn't support dual core.

Thanks!
 
Eventually 64-Bit will get big and then it'll be time to buy a 64-Bit CPU, until then it's not really neccessary.
 
This is a dumb post with bad advice. The Intel's Conroe (Core 2 Duo) line is generally 30% faster than AMDs fastest processors (FX-62) and its 40% more energy efficient than it's been in the past. The cheapest Core2 goes for around $200 and it overclocks to the equivalent of AMDs fastest, which 2 months ago went for over $1000.


To answer your question Conroes and most dual core procs support 64 bit. Intel has something called EM64T so don't fret on it. As more of the Core2 procs are available by the end of the year you will see drastic price reductions in the current processor market. Just wait for the Core2 line. I preordered mine, but I have money --- so yeah.

Dual core is good because it lowers power consumption, making the processor run cooler, last longer, and able to overclock higher because there is less heat :)
 
AMD = better for dual core, most games have AMD Specific updates for dual core, and I don't see so much about intel ones, then again, I hate intel so i may be being a little bias :D
 
If you take the Core 2 out of the equation, yes, that's true. However, Core 2 does perform better, produces less heat, and is cheaper than AMD's top CPU's. They've got it in the bag for the time being. Look at the reviews of Core 2, and you'll see it's bloody obvious that Intel actually has something that at the very least is worth considering.
 
Gaming apart, most office applications are not multithreaded and I'm wondering just which processor would be best for such applications.

If for example one of my major applications was based on a large database (maybe a few GB's), PostgreSQL say, might I not still be better off with a Pentium 4 3.6 GHz chip thumping away than a Core 2 Duo 2x1.86 GHz or even 2x2.13 GHz ?
 
rimmer said:
AMD = better for dual core, most games have AMD Specific updates for dual core, and I don't see so much about intel ones, then again, I hate intel so i may be being a little bias :D
Click to expand...

What a stupid response. AMD only held one real area over Intel and that was graphics/gaming due to the memory controller being on the proc. In general, Intel was better for applications, but Intel now rules the Dual Core market. Conroe (Core 2 Duo) has a 65 nanometer design that allows more transistors in the same space. AMD is working on a 65 nanometer technology that will be released sometime in 2007, but in late 2007 Intel will have a 45 nanometer technology. Intel is going to hold the market for the next few years.

These chips are the best all around, I was going to buy AMD for gaming until I saw these benchmarks and when the $200 proc performs just as well as AMDs $1000 proc, you BETTER take a look at it.
 
rt said:
Gaming apart, most office applications are not multithreaded and I'm wondering just which processor would be best for such applications.

If for example one of my major applications was based on a large database (maybe a few GB's), PostgreSQL say, might I not still be better off with a Pentium 4 3.6 GHz chip thumping away than a Core 2 Duo 2x1.86 GHz or even 2x2.13 GHz ?
Click to expand...

Core2 reigns in every area and they have a larger cache (4MB on the upper end), not to mention they will easily overclock to 3.6 on stock cooling. These chips are amazing, it's as if Intel took a 3.7Ghz chip and underclocked it to 2GHz, but the whole architecture has been redesigned.

Combine this with the larger FSB of the mobos they go on and it makes them a great database technology.
 
I changed my post, I don't know what I was thinking. I've read that before. Isn't Core2 still using NetBurst, just with more channels? I think that's what I heard or read some time ago and that's what I was thinking.

I'm finding it tough to make a decision on how Conroe will relate to databases. They are faster both in applications and everything else, but we've seen that the P4 Extreme Edition manhandles the Core2 in memory tests. I don't know if this will affect performance or not; memory is the most intricate part of a database, but if the Conroe spanks the P4EE in all application and game test I would think it would be a good heart for a database.

Routine select queries might run better on the P4 because they are stored in the SGA, but if something requires a search/sort and uses the PGA, I bet the Core2 will win hands down.
 
No I don't think so, I think Intel said good-bye to NetBurst with the Core 2 CPU's although I may be wrong, Big B would be the one to ask on that (being the godfather of all knowledge and such)
 
You may be right, that's just what I heard a long time ago and my memory is now skewed. To tell you the truth I spent a few days going over the architecture a some months ago. All I remember now is the benchmark results :) I guess I'm getting old fast.

I'm putting together a new box and between finding the best pricing and fastest units, I've been going in and out of the different technologies avaliable, as well as what's to come, and how they interrelate with one another.

Now I'm looking at E6600 + eVGA 7950GX2 + Mushkin Redline, and still waiting to see what the new nVidia 590s will look like.
 
Well, if all you are worried about is a database then Xenon or Opteron might be the way to go. that is, after all, what server processors are built for.
 
I would recommend the Intel Pentium D 805 for a budget processor - which if you are willing to overclock, will perform as well as Intel's Extreme Edition processors.
At stock its 2.66GHz x 2 with a 533MHz bus speed (other Pentium D's are 800MHz stock).
Toms Hardware Guide overclocked the 805 to 4.1GHz (x2).

The price in the UK for this processor is around £80 - fantastic buy if you can get it up to even 3.6GHz.

The Conroe will perform better than this CPU, as will most AMD X2's, but as for price/performance ratio I reckon this little beast is what to aim for.
 
The database application I had in mind is OpenLogos:

OpenLogos

This is a machine translation application and the database, of course, contains all the vocabulary and will, of course, be accessed very often or almost continuously. As installed it contains vocab for a number of languages and is something under 5GB.

There's some discussion of multithreading and PostgreSQL at:

Re: [GENERAL] Multi-threading on PostgreSQL?

but it does not bring me to any conclusion as to which processor is likely to perform best.

Running on my current 2GHz Celeron with just 256MB of memory, translating just something the length of this post would take a few minutes, but I guess it's mostly the size of my memory that is holding it back.
 
It says that it isn't multi threaded, it uses multiple processes. This would still take advantage of a multi-core processor. I still think a multi-core server/workstation processor would do really well here.
 
Yea, but don't ask me which one because I know exactly nothing about server processors, except maybe that Itanium decimates all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top