Processing cores.

Most of us are not "computer people" so post your technical questions and comments here. If you have computer or Internet expertise, share it here.

Moderators: carlson1, Keith B

Post Reply
User avatar

Topic author
1s1k52
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 582
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 12:40 am
Location: Mckinney (Texas obviously)

Processing cores.

#1

Post by 1s1k52 »

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
(insert clever signature here)

gringo pistolero
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 741
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 6:49 pm

Re: Processing cores.

#2

Post by gringo pistolero »

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.
I sincerely apologize to anybody I offended by suggesting the Second Amendment also applies to The People who don't work for the government.

brhalltx
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 7:46 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Processing cores.

#3

Post by brhalltx »

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.
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.
User avatar

Topic author
1s1k52
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 582
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 12:40 am
Location: Mckinney (Texas obviously)

Re: Processing cores.

#4

Post by 1s1k52 »

brhalltx wrote:
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.
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.
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.

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)

bigity
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 376
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 8:38 am
Location: Lubbock, TX

Re: Processing cores.

#5

Post by bigity »

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.
USAF Veteran|Ex-DoD Contractor|Information Technology
EDC: Springfield Armory XD Sub-Compact 40S&W 3"

bigity
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 376
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 8:38 am
Location: Lubbock, TX

Re: Processing cores.

#6

Post by bigity »

Russell wrote:SSD's are pretty darn cheap right now. I just picked up a 512 gig mx100 for $209. Great performance
Sounds like it's time to do some researching on them again :)
USAF Veteran|Ex-DoD Contractor|Information Technology
EDC: Springfield Armory XD Sub-Compact 40S&W 3"
User avatar

Topic author
1s1k52
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 582
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 12:40 am
Location: Mckinney (Texas obviously)

Re: Processing cores.

#7

Post by 1s1k52 »

bigity wrote:
Russell wrote:SSD's are pretty darn cheap right now. I just picked up a 512 gig mx100 for $209. Great performance
Sounds like it's time to do some researching on them again :)

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)
Post Reply

Return to “Technical Tips, Questions & Discussions (Computers & Internet)”