•  chapal
  • 50.2% (Neutral)
  • Member Topic Starter
Hi all,

would like to know some technical details about dual core (X2 4800+, dual core Opteron, pentium D etc ). Actually a bit confused with the meanding.

Does this means the two processors units built into one ?
Or is it there are two ALUs and register sets etc ?
More importantly does this mean a 2.2 GHz dual core is equal to a 4.4 Ghz single core processor ?

I 've read benchmark details/ comparasion etc but haven't found any specific info regarding my question. It wouls be great if someone can clear it up for me.
A dual core chip has 2 die on 1 chip. However this doesn't mean a double in speed.

Each "CPU" (if you say that on a dual core its 2 CPU's to a chip) has its own clock speed and its own cache. I would also assume they have their own instruction sets but they will be identical.
to take full advantage of a dual core cpu, applications need to be written for two seperate cpus. if you want the fastest gaming performance, the go single core, as not many games, if any, have been written for multi core cpus.
  •  chapal
  • 50.2% (Neutral)
  • Member Topic Starter
Thanks for the reply guys.

I'm using a 2.4 GHz P4 on one of my PCs atm. So it won't worht buying a X2 4800+ which is clocked at 2.4 GHz, since the clock speeds are same ? and I'm going to use it for gaming.

I'm focusing on the clock speed, since both the CPU has same clock so both are the same in terms of 'clock speed' ? or is there a catch ?
Edward The Less
If I rember right the Intel dual core CPUs are not done well. I rember a quote from a magazine saying Intel's dual core chips are put together with "spit and bailing wire".

Also if I rember right both cores share the same L2 cache on the Intel dual core CPU's where as the AMD Dual core CPU's have thier own L2 cache for each core.

Also the cores have to talk to each other over the system bus instead of internaly like the AMD dual core CPUs. I don't rember if the above is perfectly correct but I do know the current Intel dual core CPUs were not designed to be dual core.

No dual core CPU will ever be as fast as a single core chip of the same speed because of overhead but soon no single core chip will be able to be clocked fast enough to equal the speed of a multicore CPU.

In any case I whould not yet buy these first generation dual core CPU's as they are not yet done very well and as they said there are few programs that can take full advantage of them yet.

Intel will be doing better with thier next generation of dual core CPUs that are being made as dual core from the start and are being based off the very good pentium M CPU and getting rid of the Netburst that did not turn out very well.
No they aren't the same in terms of clock speed. AMD do more per clock cycle so at a lower speed can match a quicker Intel CPU.

If you want a gaming CPU then an AMD Athlon 64 4000+ would be a good choice. And single core on an X2 will match a single core Athlon 64 however most programs don't take full advantage yet of the extra core as their program code isn't designed for multi-core situations.

Also I don't think the cores speak directly to each other. All that a CPU does is process data and it gets data from memory and sends it to memory so its AMD's on chip memory controller that gives them an advantage as well over Intel.

But I will say again compairing a 2.4Ghz AMD CPU and a 2.4Ghz Intel CPU is like comparing apples to can't do it cos their architectures are that different.
Edward The Less
After a little search I found what I was looking for.

On the AMD chips the L1 cache directly communicate so if theres info allready in the other cores L1 cache it can get it without going to system memory or the harddrive to get it.

The AMD dual core chips run cooler than the Intel ones (that can double as a space heater) but that will change when the second generation of dual core Intel chips (code name Conroe) are released. Intel came out with a new motherboard formfactor called BTX that allows better cooling but it has not gone anywhere because AMD is foot-dragging on the new formfactor.

The AMD X2 can run in any old socket 939 board where as the Intel requires a motherboard with the new 955X or 945 chipset so if you just bought a feature-packed 925XE motherboard just a few months back your out of luck trying to upgrade to dual core.

The AMD Athlon 64 4000+ is a good choice right now (about $330) as he said.

The Athlon 64 fx 57 will most likely be the last single core chip AMD makes.
  •  chapal
  • 50.2% (Neutral)
  • Member Topic Starter
Thank you my friends. Some of those information was new and really helpful to me.

Yes I know we can't really compare intel and AMD CPUs, we cna make an rough idea as AMD executes 9 instructions per cycle and intel does 6 per cycle.

So as it seems, its better to get an Athlon 64 4000+ atm. However considering the fact I would upgrade the CPU for the next 2 year (or less) should I go for a dual core X2 ?

And what abt FX 57 ? Can you tell me the major differences between Athlon 64 4000+ and FX 57 ?
Only the vital points will do.
FX57 will run at 2.8Ghz compared to 2.4Ghz for the 4000. Also it may have a more refined memory controller.
If you only game theres no real point right now to go dual core, but that could change.
Edward The Less
It will change because chip makers can't go much higher with clock frequencies. Intels road map shows them makeing 2, 4, and even an 8 core processor line in the future.

Dual cores will help gameing by allowing one core to do the physics engine while the other core handles everything else. There is talk next year that video cards will go dual core with one core handleing the physics and the other the graphics allowing a dual core CPU to handle the games AI with one core while the other core handles the rest.

This is all new so it will take some time for programmers to learn how to code for multicores. After they get the hang of it you will see games with much better AIs and real world physics.

But for now you say you don't want to upgrade for two years and I think a single core chip will still run everything well for that long.
  •  chapal
  • 50.2% (Neutral)
  • Member Topic Starter
Okay, since there aren't too many games with really supports dula core, i think i'll go single core. Besides, the price difference is quite a bit.
'There is talk next year that video cards will go dual core with one core handleing the physics and the other the graphics allowing a dual core CPU to handle the games AI with one core while the other core handles the rest.'

in fact there are already a couple of next-gen 'physics engine' cards which will run in tandem with your existing gpu, much like two gpus in sli, which will independantly run all the real-time physics in games. These cards have dedicated RAM and a brand new core architecture designed specifically for dealing with complex physics calculations. As far as i know the first cards aren't commercially available yet, but will retail some time next year at around 400gbp. sounds exciting if you ask me!
hey there,
im in the same boat. im building a new comp, using the fragboxII from falcon to save space and i was going to get a 4200+x2 up to this morning, but then i started to read a lot of stuff about how single core processors are better suited for games, which is the main thing i do. my question is, if a get a single core chip for now since no games support dual core, yet, and get a mobo that supports x2, will i be able to get a dual core chip down the line when games start supporting dual core, or will amd only make chips that will run on thier new mobo (socket m2 i think, coming next year). basically, if i get a single core (4000+ san diego) now, and i [censored]myself for a difficult upgrade down the line? i hope what i said makes sense.
I understand you perfectly. I just built my new computer on a 939 mobo, and I'm not worried. It's not as if they'll simply stop production of 939 CPU's when socket M2 comes out, as many people still have 939 mobo's and won't want to upgrade.