I was struggling to explain this to a friend. I think it is either A. Because I really don't grasp it myself or B. I'm just bad at explaining things.
He is looking for a new computer and called to ask me about processors as I have been building and repairing them for awhile. When he asked me why a dual core had the same memory speed as a quad core I stated "The more cores the better as they divide the load of processes"
So someone smarter then me explain how aside from cache speeds. How is a 1.7 quad core theoretically "faster than a dual core 2.8 supposedly.
I know there are more than dual and quad cores. I am using this for the sake of this example
Processing cores.
-
Topic author - Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 3
- Posts: 582
- Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 12:40 am
- Location: Mckinney (Texas obviously)
Processing cores.
(insert clever signature here)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 741
- Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 6:49 pm
Re: Processing cores.
Memory speed is independent of processor speed. Either can be a bottleneck.
As for cores, it's a poor analogy, but four pipes flowing 0.75 gpm each can fill a tank faster than two pipes flowing 1 gpm each.
As for cores, it's a poor analogy, but four pipes flowing 0.75 gpm each can fill a tank faster than two pipes flowing 1 gpm each.
I sincerely apologize to anybody I offended by suggesting the Second Amendment also applies to The People who don't work for the government.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 7:46 pm
- Location: Texas
Re: Processing cores.
It may not be. There are many factors, including software. If the software can only use one core, then the 2.8 (assuming other factors like RAM, HD, OS are similar) will be faster.1s1k52 wrote:So someone smarter then me explain how aside from cache speeds. How is a 1.7 quad core theoretically "faster than a dual core 2.8 supposedly.
-
Topic author - Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 3
- Posts: 582
- Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 12:40 am
- Location: Mckinney (Texas obviously)
Re: Processing cores.
Yeah that's another thing I have had in the back of my mind with all these multiple cores being added. I used to game a lot and not all programs and games will pull from multiple cores.brhalltx wrote:It may not be. There are many factors, including software. If the software can only use one core, then the 2.8 (assuming other factors like RAM, HD, OS are similar) will be faster.1s1k52 wrote:So someone smarter then me explain how aside from cache speeds. How is a 1.7 quad core theoretically "faster than a dual core 2.8 supposedly.
My wife's new laptop has windows 8.1 with a dual core 2.1? Processor 1mb cache 4gb of ram and it runs slower than Moises. Same exact setup running windows 7 runs perfectly fine. So I will be upgrading her to 8gb of ram I would like to think that will help for what she is doing
(insert clever signature here)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 2
- Posts: 376
- Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 8:38 am
- Location: Lubbock, TX
Re: Processing cores.
4 gig of ram is horribly limiting on a 64 bit modern OS. You should see big improvements going to 8. More and more applications (games or not) are starting to utilize multiple cores so we should be seeing big improvements there as well.
Now if only SSDs would really get cheap and higher capacity.
Now if only SSDs would really get cheap and higher capacity.
USAF Veteran|Ex-DoD Contractor|Information Technology
EDC: Springfield Armory XD Sub-Compact 40S&W 3"
EDC: Springfield Armory XD Sub-Compact 40S&W 3"
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 2
- Posts: 376
- Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 8:38 am
- Location: Lubbock, TX
Re: Processing cores.
Sounds like it's time to do some researching on them again :)Russell wrote:SSD's are pretty darn cheap right now. I just picked up a 512 gig mx100 for $209. Great performance
USAF Veteran|Ex-DoD Contractor|Information Technology
EDC: Springfield Armory XD Sub-Compact 40S&W 3"
EDC: Springfield Armory XD Sub-Compact 40S&W 3"
-
Topic author - Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 3
- Posts: 582
- Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 12:40 am
- Location: Mckinney (Texas obviously)
Re: Processing cores.
bigity wrote:Sounds like it's time to do some researching on them again :)Russell wrote:SSD's are pretty darn cheap right now. I just picked up a 512 gig mx100 for $209. Great performance
Yeah all the black friday sales were crazy with SSDs. I know the performance is insanely better but I can't justify with the lack of space for any drives I have worth replacing.
(insert clever signature here)