Dual Core Processors

[danman2005]

I've been looking into getting a dual core processor. I've seen that they are more expensive than a single core processor with the same speed. When looking at a dual core processor, how should you view its speed in respect to a single core? Does each core operate at the Ghz they say, thus doubling the overall speed?

[doctorgonzo]

When deciding whether you want to go dual-core or single-core, you need to determine what you plan on doing with the processor. For the same amount of money (which is what it comes down to in the end), you can get one faster single-core processor or a slower dual-core processor. Dual-core is good for multitasking, so if you multitask a slower dual-core may be better than a faster single-core. If you game, the reverse is true since most people don't multitask when playing games.

[Cricket]

Originally Posted by danman2005 Does each core operate at the Ghz they say, thus doubling the overall speed?

No, each core operates at it's stated speed but you can get more work done than a single core processor because a dual core processor can do true multi-tasking...you can really do two things at the same time, each core handling one task separately. With a single core processor it has to divide share clock between the two tasks...one task will be run for so many clock cycles while the other task waits it's turn. This goes back and forth until all tasks are done.

Cricket

[pam123]

Originally Posted by danman2005 I've been looking into getting a dual core processor. I've seen that they are more expensive than a single core processor with the same speed. When looking at a dual core processor, how should you view its speed in respect to a single core? Does each core operate at the Ghz they say, thus doubling the overall speed?

An exhaustive answer and comparison for all current processors (dual core and otherwise) from the gnomes at Tom's Hardware : http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/11/...u_charts_2005/

As for the double the speed question it's not two 2.4Ghz cores adding up to 4800+.
It really is two cores using efficient pipelines, just like an XP 2500+ is really 1.8 GHz but matches a 2.5 GHz because of efficiency ( and is why Intel had the heat problem and AMD didn't ), that are capabable of running two different sets of programs.
Whcih means you can burn a DVD and play World of Warcraft at the same time.
It also means that games will be able to split the processing chores between two cores and the days of dumb A.I. are numbered (at least I hope they are) and we may not need that extra "physics" card just yet.
Ther are a few games out now that can actually take advantage of dual cores and more on the way this year, Oblivion and DreamFall for starters.
The old brute power GHz race is now over and, judging by tech news, the new multi-core race has begun.

[danman2005]

So, for a gaming oriented computer, a single core would be a better choice. Now for the age old question. Intel or AMD?

[doctorgonzo]

Originally Posted by danman2005 Now for the age old question. Intel or AMD?

Flip a coin.

[thefultonhow]

For gaming, I generally recommend AMD because it's slightly faster in game benchmarks, but frankly it's not a whole lot faster. Intel also gives you the benefit of HyperThreading, which allows the processor to process two chunks of data at once if they aren't using the same registers (so your virus scanner, for example, won't affect your framerates).

In other words, it's sort of a tossup -- pick whichever one you're comfortable with.