Processors

SephStorm

I am looking to buy a new laptop, hoing to get lucky with a good black friday deal. Anyway, my current laptop has a single core Athlon 64 Proc @ 1.6Ghz, and it takes forever to boot. Anyway, I am looking at getting a new laptop with at least 2 Ghz dual core and 4 GB of RAM under $500. I found a few so far, but today I saw a Quad core, 1.6 Ghz, and 4 GB RAM. Its outside the price range but reasonable.

So the question is, whats better, dual core at higher speed, or more cores at a lower speed?

Also, another question, I've seen processors listed with the speed as 2.1 Ghz, or 2.10 Ghz, with the same model numbers. Is this common? Are procs running at 2.90 really running at 2.9 Ghz?

And finally, if anyone has suggestions on laptops that would fit my needs, and/or places to buy laptops online at good price, please include them, right now newegg is my only real option.

Thanks in advance.

earweed

SephStorm wrote: »

Also, another question, I've seen processors listed with the speed as 2.1 Ghz, or 2.10 Ghz, with the same model numbers. Is this common? Are procs running at 2.90 really running at 2.9 Ghz?

.

Sephstorm....2.90 is the same as 2.9 just showing more precision. Basic math.

Back to the other question.. more cores can do more so you can effectively see your laptop work faster with a quad core at the same clock speed.

tiersten

SephStorm wrote: »

So the question is, whats better, dual core at higher speed, or more cores at a lower speed?

Depends on what you're trying to run. You can't directly compare clock speed anyway unless it is the same architecture and type of CPU.

SephStorm

earweed wrote: »

Sephstorm....2.90 is the same as 2.9 just showing more precision. Basic math.

I don't know, $2.90 isnt the same as $2.9. Is there a range for processor speed? x.1-9 I assume?

gunbunnysoulja

My processor for example (i3 530) has a bclock of 133 and a multi of 22 so that gives a processor speed of 2.926, aka 2.93. 2.9 and 2.90 however is the same. It doesn't matter though as 2.9 and 2.9x wouldn't make any difference in perception as its such a small increase.

gosh1976

SephStorm wrote: »

I don't know, $2.90 isnt the same as $2.9.

um $2.90 would actually be the same as $2.9

$2.90 = 2 dollars and nine tenths of a dollar
$2.9 = 2 dollars and nine tenths of a dollar

thehourman

tiersten is right.

When the manufacturer says that their CPU clock is 2.9Ghz, it means that is the maximum it can run. Most likely the clock speed of that CPU is lower than 2.9. Even rendering a HD video won't hit the maximum.
You will hit 2.9 if you are stressing your CPU to its maximum. For example, download and try the app called LinX, Prime95. Execute them you will see that your CPU load will go up to 100% at that speed your CPU is hitting the 2.9 speed.

To answer the question dual core with higher clock speed vs quad core with lower clock speed, let me explain why the less core has a higher clock compare to quad with lower clock speed.
The reason why the dual core has higher clock speed is the heat/temperature it produce. Since the CPU has only two cores it can handle a higher clock speed without any problem. Meaning, less core less heat and voltage. Therefore, CPU manufacturer can increase it performance by raising its clock speed.

About the quad core, since quad has four cores, it requires more voltage(power), so it produce more heat. To lower the temperature, CPU manufacturer clocked the quads CPU lower to make the life of the CPU longer.

Now, which one is better?
It depends on the application you're trying to run.
For instance, if you are running an app that can only utilized a single core then the dual core would perform better compare to quad because the dual core has a higher clock speed; even though the quad core has more cores, the app can only use a single core and the quad core has lower clock speed compare to dual core.

But, if the app can utilized all available cores, something like video editing software, the quad core will definitely win because it does have more cores than dual core, plus you can multitask because it has more cores. Meaning some cores can work on other apps while you do your stuff.

These days we have the nehalem CPUs which Intel brought back the Hyper Threading feature, and they added the Turbo Boost. This architecture is totally difference and faster because the memory controller is on the CPU itself, and i3, i5 graphic controller is on the CPU as well. So no more north bridge. All i CPUs don't use FBS anymore, they replace it with QPI which is a lot faster compare to FBS. Even using an i7 CPU you are still getting a bottleneck. A multi-processor mobo can use the full bandwidth of QPI.

Hyper Threading simply means, each core will have an image of itself, so the OS thinks that your CPU has more cores. For example, the Intel i3 CPU is a dual core with HT. The OS thinks it is a quad core, because it does have four working threads. So to compare the performance increase of Intel i3 vs the Core2Duo, it is about 25% increased compare to its predecessor.

The Turbo Boost is simple an extra feature Intel added to their CPUs. What it does, it automatically overclock the CPU to the specific clock speed by raising the multiplier.
For instance, this will kick in when the CPU thinks that it can finish the job faster by using the Turbo Boost. This happens when you are running an app that requires a lot of calculations.
(NOTE: All Intel i3's do not have Turbo Boost. Some i5's do not have Hyper Threading. All i7's have all the HT and TB)

SephStorm

The system will probably be used for security studies, so I figure the applications will be able to use the multiple threads, hopefully. I understanding what everyone says but i am still trying to understand the 2.9 vs 2.90 thing (I understand the minimal gains and manufacturers view) but I am not a math whiz. so i am trying to understand how nintey cents is the same as nine cents...

tiersten

SephStorm wrote: »

The system will probably be used for security studies, so I figure the applications will be able to use the multiple threads, hopefully.

Security applications doesn't imply anything at all to do with whether they'll be more suitable for a dual or quad core CPU.

SephStorm wrote: »

so i am trying to understand how nintey cents is the same as nine cents...

Its not. $2.9 is $2.90 and not $2.09. You could write it as $2.90000 if you really wanted to be that precise but you're still saying $2.9.

SephStorm

oh yeah, that is how math works.

I would assume some applications would be more suited to multi-core proccessing, password cracking comes to mind. I know CUDA was the rage not long ago for using GPU's to assist in the process as well.

it_consultant

From my own experience, the i5 and i7 mobile processors destroy the comparable AMD processors. I would stay away from the i3. I have an i5 and with the on chip AES encryption instructions, making my encrypted laptop just as quick as it was before it was encrypted.

SteveLord

CPUs will run at their max clock speed 100% of the time unless some form of throttling is enabled (like laptops have or AMD Cool n Quiet.)

Also, the i3 CPUs are great for the price. Comparable to the Core2 series. Since most business users will never use more than dualcore, you can opt for high clocked i3s if you're on a tight budget.

I run a 980X (6 core, 12 threads, 3.33ghz) and I regularly stress it and the other components in my desktop.