General Dual Core Question

Good answer! Thanks Tony
 >> Stay informed about: General Dual Core Question 

andrewduerden.TakeThisOut@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've just bought a system with an enrty level core 2 duo processeor
> (1.8Ghz x2). I was just wondering, if I was to buy a game that had a
> minimum system requirement of 2ghz, would it run? Neither core on its
> own runs at 2Ghz but presumably the work load would be split between
> the 2 cores? Is it only newly released titles that take advantage of
> dual cores?
>
> Thanks
>

If it's simply asking for a "2 Ghz computer", then it must be a really
old game. Gigahertz ceased to be meaningful about 2 years ago, when even
Intel stopped using it. Actually it ceased to be meaningful much earlier
than that, but Intel wasn't prepared to give on it yet at that time.

Each of those 1.8Ghz Core 2 cores by themselves is faster than 3.0GHz
Pentium 4 core, let alone two of them.

Yousuf Khan
 >> Stay informed about: General Dual Core Question 

On Feb 23, 7:30 am, "The Lone Gunman" <l....DeleteThis@invalid.net> wrote:

>
> Could you be more specific, or at least point me to a link (or two) that can
> sort of lay out the nuts & bolts of it? Thx.

Most of this was beaten to death when the NetBurst architecture first
came out. Netburst could run faster because it did less work in each
clock. One way in which that effect is obvious even from a high-
altitude view of the architecture is that NetBurst had a much longer
pipeline than competing architectures, including the Pentium III.
Each stage in the pipeline had less to do, but there were more stages.

That made pipeline stalls on NetBurst much more expensive than on PIII
or competing AMD designs, because it took many more clocks to clear
the pipeline of useless instructions. NetBurst would have done better
if code were less branchy and more predictable in memory fetches,
because it is branch mispredictions and cache misses that most
frequently stall the pipeline.

Intel made two heavy bets that software could be made predictable:
IA-64 and NetBurst. Andy Glew, who works for Intel, has said that
Intel doesn't understand software, and he may be right. Because of
Intel's acquisition of Multiflow and heavy investment in compiler
research, I think it more likely that Intel bet incorrectly that it
could bend software to its architecture (and that, in fact, it
understood software better than anyone else). Much has been learned
in the process but, at the moment, it looks like Intel lost heavily on
its bet. The processors that are most popular and successful at the
moment are successful precisely because they cope well with
unpredictable code.

Robert.
 >> Stay informed about: General Dual Core Question 

Yousuf Khan <bbbl67.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
: andrewduerden.RemoveThis@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>

: If it's simply asking for a "2 Ghz computer", then it must be
: a really old game. Gigahertz ceased to be meaningful about 2
: years ago, when even Intel stopped using it. Actually it
: ceased to be meaningful much earlier than that, but Intel
: wasn't prepared to give on it yet at that time.
:
: Each of those 1.8Ghz Core 2 cores by themselves is faster than
: 3.0GHz Pentium 4 core, let alone two of them.

Ok, I'll bite. Why?

TLG
 >> Stay informed about: General Dual Core Question 

The Lone Gunman wrote:

>Yousuf Khan <bbbl67 RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>: andrewduerden RemoveThis @gmail.com wrote:
><snip>
>
>: If it's simply asking for a "2 Ghz computer", then it must be
>: a really old game. Gigahertz ceased to be meaningful about 2
>: years ago, when even Intel stopped using it. Actually it
>: ceased to be meaningful much earlier than that, but Intel
>: wasn't prepared to give on it yet at that time.
>:
>: Each of those 1.8Ghz Core 2 cores by themselves is faster than
>: 3.0GHz Pentium 4 core, let alone two of them.
>
>Ok, I'll bite. Why?

Because it's a better design that accomplishes a lot more work per
clock, that's why.
 >> Stay informed about: General Dual Core Question 

chrisv <chrisv RemoveThis @nospam.invalid> wrote:
: The Lone Gunman wrote:
:
:: Yousuf Khan <bbbl67 RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
::: andrewduerden RemoveThis @gmail.com wrote:
:: <snip>
::
::: If it's simply asking for a "2 Ghz computer", then it must be
::: a really old game. Gigahertz ceased to be meaningful about 2
::: years ago, when even Intel stopped using it. Actually it
::: ceased to be meaningful much earlier than that, but Intel
::: wasn't prepared to give on it yet at that time.
:::
::: Each of those 1.8Ghz Core 2 cores by themselves is faster
::: than
::: 3.0GHz Pentium 4 core, let alone two of them.
::
:: Ok, I'll bite. Why?
:
: Because it's a better design that accomplishes a lot more work
: per clock, that's why.

Could you be more specific, or at least point me to a link (or two) that can
sort of lay out the nuts & bolts of it? Thx.
 >> Stay informed about: General Dual Core Question 

The Lone Gunman wrote:

>chrisv <chrisv.DeleteThis@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>: The Lone Gunman wrote:
>:
>:: Yousuf Khan <bbbl67.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>::: andrewduerden.DeleteThis@gmail.com wrote:
>:: <snip>
>::
>::: If it's simply asking for a "2 Ghz computer", then it must be
>::: a really old game. Gigahertz ceased to be meaningful about 2
>::: years ago, when even Intel stopped using it. Actually it
>::: ceased to be meaningful much earlier than that, but Intel
>::: wasn't prepared to give on it yet at that time.
>:::
>::: Each of those 1.8Ghz Core 2 cores by themselves is faster
>::: than
>::: 3.0GHz Pentium 4 core, let alone two of them.
>::
>:: Ok, I'll bite. Why?
>:
>: Because it's a better design that accomplishes a lot more work
>: per clock, that's why.
>
>Could you be more specific, or at least point me to a link (or two) that can
>sort of lay out the nuts & bolts of it? Thx.

Google is your friend.
 >> Stay informed about: General Dual Core Question 

On Feb 21, 3:07 pm, andrewduer... DeleteThis @gmail.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've just bought a system with an enrty level core 2 duo processeor
> (1.8Ghz x2). I was just wondering, if I was to buy a game that had a
> minimum system requirement of 2ghz, would it run? Neither core on its
> own runs at 2Ghz but presumably the work load would be split between
> the 2 cores? Is it only newly released titles that take advantage of
> dual cores?

If you use nvidia or amd/ati graphics chip, the drivers are optimized
to use two (or more) cores, leaving more time for the game application
to do it's own computations. In short: dual/multi core helps even if
the application doesn't directly use more than a single thread.

Keep in mind that usually minimum requirements either mean the
graphics quality is aggressively reduced or the application
performance might not be what you feel comfortable with. YMMW and all
that.
 >> Stay informed about: General Dual Core Question 

The Lone Gunman wrote:
> : Because it's a better design that accomplishes a lot more work
> : per clock, that's why.
>
> Could you be more specific, or at least point me to a link (or two) that can
> sort of lay out the nuts & bolts of it? Thx.

Most of the proof is in the benchmarks.

Yousuf Khan

--
There is no failure, only delayed success
 >> Stay informed about: General Dual Core Question 

Yousuf Khan <bbbl67.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
: The Lone Gunman wrote:
::: Because it's a better design that accomplishes a lot more
::: work per clock, that's why.
::
:: Could you be more specific, or at least point me to a link
:: (or two) that can sort of lay out the nuts & bolts of it?
:: Thx.
:
: Most of the proof is in the benchmarks.

Lame answer. My thanks however, to Robert Myers.
 >> Stay informed about: General Dual Core Question