For everyone that says Dual Cores doesn't mean double the performance...

1. You're making a post aimed at people who don't exist- i.e. real PC games who claim single-cores are better than dual-cores. No one has ever made that claim, most people here have (or will be purchasing) a multi-core processor.

2. Hertz is a measure of clock speed not performance. If you have two wheels spinning at 15rpm, does that mean they are spinning at 30rpm? No, they are both turning at 15rpm, you just have more of them.

3. Hertz is a measure of speed not performance. Repeat. Hertz is a measure of speed not performance. Repeat. Hertz is a measure of speed, not performance. Do you get it yet? It doesn't work that way.

4. For monolothic single-threaded apps, the people who say "dual core doesn't matter" are correct, a second core alone will not boost performance. Rather, improvements to the performance of each individual core will matter more. In this case, the Core 2 Duo still offers an improvement over the Pentium 4 in older applications, so we know this to be the case.

-

Hertz is not a measure of processing power.

Again, get yourself a Dual Core machine, run Extender Resource Monitor and watch both core run in real time for all apps. I just don't have the HTML or web experience to put pics in posts but I know what I can see right on my own PC's performance charts. And you can all leave the insults at home as I report EVERY negative post. jmaster299

a serious question, do u have any college backround on computers?

Again, get yourself a Dual Core machine, run Extender Resource Monitor and watch both core run in real time for all apps. I just don't have the HTML or web experience to put pics in posts but I know what I can see right on my own PC's performance charts. And you can all leave the insults at home as I report EVERY negative post. jmaster299

Again you have no proof... just stop it already.

Again, get yourself a Dual Core machine, run Extender Resource Monitor and watch both core run in real time for all apps. I just don't have the HTML or web experience to put pics in posts but I know what I can see right on my own PC's performance charts. And you can all leave the insults at home as I report EVERY negative post. jmaster299

PROOF?

Dual cores are not multi-threaded. You have to haved 3 cores or more for that. Only games that are multithreaded out to date are Supreme Commander and Unreal Tournament 3. Other then that games like Quake 4 and CoD2 are optimized for Dualcores, meaning those games are coarsethreaded. So that is how they end up being a tad faster then single cores. Just like a Tri/Quad core will outperform a Dual core in a multithreaded game.9mmSpliff

??? What are you talking about? Multi-threading has nothing to do with the number of cores. Even single core processors can multi-thread, the OS handles the task scheduling. However, the application must be multi-threaded to take advantage of multiple cores.

[QUOTE="9mmSpliff"]Dual cores are not multi-threaded. You have to haved 3 cores or more for that. Only games that are multithreaded out to date are Supreme Commander and Unreal Tournament 3. Other then that games like Quake 4 and CoD2 are optimized for Dualcores, meaning those games are coarsethreaded. So that is how they end up being a tad faster then single cores. Just like a Tri/Quad core will outperform a Dual core in a multithreaded game.cubiclegeek

??? What are you talking about? Multi-threading has nothing to do with the number of cores. Even single core processors can multi-thread, the OS handles the task scheduling. However, the application must be multi-threaded to take advantage of multiple cores.

No, what are YOU talking about. You make all these claims and yet show zero proof.

[QUOTE="cubiclegeek"]

[QUOTE="9mmSpliff"]Dual cores are not multi-threaded. You have to haved 3 cores or more for that. Only games that are multithreaded out to date are Supreme Commander and Unreal Tournament 3. Other then that games like Quake 4 and CoD2 are optimized for Dualcores, meaning those games are coarsethreaded. So that is how they end up being a tad faster then single cores. Just like a Tri/Quad core will outperform a Dual core in a multithreaded game.musclesforcier

??? What are you talking about? Multi-threading has nothing to do with the number of cores. Even single core processors can multi-thread, the OS handles the task scheduling. However, the application must be multi-threaded to take advantage of multiple cores.

No, what are YOU talking about. You make all these claims and yet show zero proof.

LOL!! 9mm & Musclesforcier, you have no clue! You do not need 3 cores to run multi-threaded apps!! You do not even need 2! Almost every program you run today is multithreaded. For example just typing something in MS Word is using close to 500 threads! An app being multithreaded has to do with the OS and not how many cores it has. There have been mainstream multithreaded apps ever since Windows NT came out.

You need to read a little and stop saying that complete nonsense about needing 3 or more cores to run multi-threaded apps! LOL that is about the dumbest thing I have ever heard!

Read these -

http://www.evaluationengineering.com/archive/articles/0298pcni.htm

http://vergil.chemistry.gatech.edu/resources/programming/threads.html

http://www.code-magazine.com/Article.aspx?quickid=060033

[QUOTE="cubiclegeek"]

[QUOTE="9mmSpliff"]Dual cores are not multi-threaded. You have to haved 3 cores or more for that. Only games that are multithreaded out to date are Supreme Commander and Unreal Tournament 3. Other then that games like Quake 4 and CoD2 are optimized for Dualcores, meaning those games are coarsethreaded. So that is how they end up being a tad faster then single cores. Just like a Tri/Quad core will outperform a Dual core in a multithreaded game.musclesforcier

??? What are you talking about? Multi-threading has nothing to do with the number of cores. Even single core processors can multi-thread, the OS handles the task scheduling. However, the application must be multi-threaded to take advantage of multiple cores.

No, what are YOU talking about. You make all these claims and yet show zero proof.

[QUOTE="9mmSpliff"]Dual cores are not multi-threaded. You have to haved 3 cores or more for that. Only games that are multithreaded out to date are Supreme Commander and Unreal Tournament 3. Other then that games like Quake 4 and CoD2 are optimized for Dualcores, meaning those games are coarsethreaded. So that is how they end up being a tad faster then single cores. Just like a Tri/Quad core will outperform a Dual core in a multithreaded game.cubiclegeek

??? What are you talking about? Multi-threading has nothing to do with the number of cores. Even single core processors can multi-thread, the OS handles the task scheduling. However, the application must be multi-threaded to take advantage of multiple cores.

Multithreading is represented by the equation of N-1, where N is the number of cores and the 1 is the "dispatcher" if you will. A dualcore is going to get almost no worthy gains from code that is multithreaded in the N-1 model.

Edit- I'm not 100% sure what Spliff was actually referring to but I think he was talking about the performance increase.

Here is more, from wiki -

"

A multi-coreCPU (or chip-level multiprocessor, CMP) combines two or more independent cores into a single package composed of a single integrated circuit (IC), called a die, or more dies packaged together. A dual-core processor contains two cores and a quad-core processor contains four cores. A multi-core microprocessor implements multiprocessing in a single physical package. A processor with all cores on a single die is called a monolithic processor. Cores in a multicore device may share a single coherent cache at the highest on-device cache level (e.g. L2 for the Intel Core 2) or may have separate caches (e.g. current AMD dual-core processors). The processors also share the same interconnect to the rest of the system. Each "core" independently implements optimizations such as superscalar execution, pipelining, and multithreading. A system with N cores is effective when it is presented with N or more threads concurrently. The most commercially significant (or at least the most 'obvious') multi-core processors are those used in computers (primarily from Intel & AMD) and game consoles (e.g., the Cell processor in the PS3). In this context, "multi" typically means a relatively small number of cores. However, the technology is widely used in other technology areas, especially those of embedded processors, such as network processors and digital signal processors, and in GPUs.""

A dual-core processor is a single chip that contains two distinct processors or "execution cores" in the same integrated circuit.

So if we talk about CPUs , "Multi Core" refers to - two or more CPUs working together on one single chip (like AMD Athlon X2 or Intel Core Duo) in contrast to DUAL CPU, which refers to two separate CPUs working together.

So yes AMD X2s and Intel Core Duos ARE "MULTI CORES"!!! It does not have to be 3 or more and I have no idea where you guys dreamed that one up!

Here is more, from wiki -

"

A multi-coreCPU (or chip-level multiprocessor, CMP) combines two or more independent cores into a single package composed of a single integrated circuit (IC), called a die, or more dies packaged together. A dual-core processor contains two cores and a quad-core processor contains four cores. A multi-core microprocessor implements multiprocessing in a single physical package. A processor with all cores on a single die is called a monolithic processor. Cores in a multicore device may share a single coherent cache at the highest on-device cache level (e.g. L2 for the Intel Core 2) or may have separate caches (e.g. current AMD dual-core processors). The processors also share the same interconnect to the rest of the system. Each "core" independently implements optimizations such as superscalar execution, pipelining, and multithreading. A system with N cores is effective when it is presented with N or more threads concurrently. The most commercially significant (or at least the most 'obvious') multi-core processors are those used in computers (primarily from Intel & AMD) and game consoles (e.g., the Cell processor in the PS3). In this context, "multi" typically means a relatively small number of cores. However, the technology is widely used in other technology areas, especially those of embedded processors, such as network processors and digital signal processors, and in GPUs.""

A dual-core processor is a single chip that contains two distinct processors or "execution cores" in the same integrated circuit.

So if we talk about CPUs , "Multi Core" refers to - two or more CPUs working together on one single chip (like AMD Athlon X2 or Intel Core Duo) in contrast to DUAL CPU, which refers to two separate CPUs working together.

So yes AMD X2s and Intel Core Duos ARE "MULTI CORES"!!! It does not have to be 3 or more and I have no idea where you guys dreamed that one up!

Store24

LOL, and what about hyper trending?

[QUOTE="musclesforcier"][QUOTE="cubiclegeek"]

[QUOTE="9mmSpliff"]Dual cores are not multi-threaded. You have to haved 3 cores or more for that. Only games that are multithreaded out to date are Supreme Commander and Unreal Tournament 3. Other then that games like Quake 4 and CoD2 are optimized for Dualcores, meaning those games are coarsethreaded. So that is how they end up being a tad faster then single cores. Just like a Tri/Quad core will outperform a Dual core in a multithreaded game.cricketboy2238

??? What are you talking about? Multi-threading has nothing to do with the number of cores. Even single core processors can multi-thread, the OS handles the task scheduling. However, the application must be multi-threaded to take advantage of multiple cores.

No, what are YOU talking about. You make all these claims and yet show zero proof.

I was refering to the TC lack of proof...

Here is more, from wiki -

"

A multi-coreCPU (or chip-level multiprocessor, CMP) combines two or more independent cores into a single package composed of a single integrated circuit (IC), called a die, or more dies packaged together. A dual-core processor contains two cores and a quad-core processor contains four cores. A multi-core microprocessor implements multiprocessing in a single physical package. A processor with all cores on a single die is called a monolithic processor. Cores in a multicore device may share a single coherent cache at the highest on-device cache level (e.g. L2 for the Intel Core 2) or may have separate caches (e.g. current AMD dual-core processors). The processors also share the same interconnect to the rest of the system. Each "core" independently implements optimizations such as superscalar execution, pipelining, and multithreading. A system with N cores is effective when it is presented with N or more threads concurrently. The most commercially significant (or at least the most 'obvious') multi-core processors are those used in computers (primarily from Intel & AMD) and game consoles (e.g., the Cell processor in the PS3). In this context, "multi" typically means a relatively small number of cores. However, the technology is widely used in other technology areas, especially those of embedded processors, such as network processors and digital signal processors, and in GPUs.""

A dual-core processor is a single chip that contains two distinct processors or "execution cores" in the same integrated circuit.

So if we talk about CPUs , "Multi Core" refers to - two or more CPUs working together on one single chip (like AMD Athlon X2 or Intel Core Duo) in contrast to DUAL CPU, which refers to two separate CPUs working together.

So yes AMD X2s and Intel Core Duos ARE "MULTI CORES"!!! It does not have to be 3 or more and I have no idea where you guys dreamed that one up!

Store24

Wiki is not a credible source, sorry.

[QUOTE="musclesforcier"][QUOTE="cubiclegeek"]

[QUOTE="9mmSpliff"]Dual cores are not multi-threaded. You have to haved 3 cores or more for that. Only games that are multithreaded out to date are Supreme Commander and Unreal Tournament 3. Other then that games like Quake 4 and CoD2 are optimized for Dualcores, meaning those games are coarsethreaded. So that is how they end up being a tad faster then single cores. Just like a Tri/Quad core will outperform a Dual core in a multithreaded game.Store24

??? What are you talking about? Multi-threading has nothing to do with the number of cores. Even single core processors can multi-thread, the OS handles the task scheduling. However, the application must be multi-threaded to take advantage of multiple cores.

No, what are YOU talking about. You make all these claims and yet show zero proof.

LOL!! 9mm & Musclesforcier, you have no clue! You do not need 3 cores to run multi-threaded apps!! You do not even need 2! Almost every program you run today is multithreaded. For example just typing something in MS Word is using close to 500 threads! An app being multithreaded has to do with the OS and not how many cores it has. There have been mainstream multithreaded apps ever since Windows NT came out.

You need to read a little and stop saying that complete nonsense about needing 3 or more cores to run multi-threaded apps! LOL that is about the dumbest thing I have ever heard!

Read these -

http://www.evaluationengineering.com/archive/articles/0298pcni.htm

http://vergil.chemistry.gatech.edu/resources/programming/threads.html

http://www.code-magazine.com/Article.aspx?quickid=060033

I was not agreeing with 9mm, what are you talking about?

So yes AMD X2s and Intel Core Duos ARE "MULTI CORES"!!! It does not have to be 3 or more and I have no idea where you guys dreamed that one up!Store24

Store, even though you might be calling them multicores, doesn't mean they will get any sort of performance increase from a multithreaded app that uses the N-1 model.

I think Spliff was trying to repeat what I said awhile ago.
For a N-1 multithreading you need 3 or more cores to see a performance increase, which got me saying that dualcores are not multicores.

While the definition of multi is more than one, it is much more common to use it in the context of more than 2 or several.

[QUOTE="Store24"]So yes AMD X2s and Intel Core Duos ARE "MULTI CORES"!!! It does not have to be 3 or more and I have no idea where you guys dreamed that one up!LordEC911

Store, even though you might be calling them multicores, doesn't mean they will get any sort of performance increase from a multithreaded app that uses the N-1 model.

I think Spliff was trying to repeat what I said awhile ago.
For a N-1 multithreading you need 3 or more cores to see a performance increase, which got me saying that dualcores are not multicores.

While the definition of multi is more than one, it is much more common to use it in the context of more than 2 or several.

[QUOTE="Store24"]So yes AMD X2s and Intel Core Duos ARE "MULTI CORES"!!! It does not have to be 3 or more and I have no idea where you guys dreamed that one up!LordEC911

Store, even though you might be calling them multicores, doesn't mean they will get any sort of performance increase from a multithreaded app that uses the N-1 model.

I think Spliff was trying to repeat what I said awhile ago.
For a N-1 multithreading you need 3 or more cores to see a performance increase, which got me saying that dualcores are not multicores.

While the definition of multi is more than one, it is much more common to use it in the context of more than 2 or several.

Please provide some documentation for this. And give some examples of "N-1" apps.

[QUOTE="Store24"]So yes AMD X2s and Intel Core Duos ARE "MULTI CORES"!!! It does not have to be 3 or more and I have no idea where you guys dreamed that one up!LordEC911

Store, even though you might be calling them multicores, doesn't mean they will get any sort of performance increase from a multithreaded app that uses the N-1 model.

I think Spliff was trying to repeat what I said awhile ago.
For a N-1 multithreading you need 3 or more cores to see a performance increase, which got me saying that dualcores are not multicores.

While the definition of multi is more than one, it is much more common to use it in the context of more than 2 or several.

Please provide some documentation for this. And give some examples of "N-1" apps.Store24

Please read the thread.

[QUOTE="jmaster299"]Again, 20% in game because your Processor is only one piece in a very large puzzle....i'm talking about total system performance and resources.LordEC911

Wow...

Please go research the topic and comeback.
Read these articles and the thread, you will learn alot.
If that thread is too long just read T Rush's posts.

[QUOTE="Store24"]Please provide some documentation for this. And give some examples of "N-1" apps.LordEC911

Please read the thread.

[QUOTE="jmaster299"]Again, 20% in game because your Processor is only one piece in a very large puzzle....i'm talking about total system performance and resources.LordEC911

Wow...

Please go research the topic and comeback.
Read these articles and the thread, you will learn alot.
If that thread is too long just read T Rush's posts.

For the one billionth time....this thread is not about game play performance but total system performance....please actually read the thread....yes older games will not see the benefit from a dual core has they would from a higher single core, but the over all system performance will be increased when using a dual core. a dual core system is not bogged down with background programs...i can leave norton 360 and webroot spysweeper running in the background and see no drop in game play because my dual core can handle the load.jmaster299

Again show us benchmark application...

APPLICATIONS!!!

Can you see now!

I can't believe my first post got modded, it doesn't warrant to be titles as trolling but w/e, everyone I wanted to see it probably did.

Well anyway, to take a scren shot push the Print Screen button and it will take a screenshot of everything thats showing up on your monitor.
So do your test and press Print Screen when you get your results and there you have your proof.

When you say, I see a 100% increase, or I can leave a bunch of programs on at the same time.
I can as easliy say that I don't see a 100% increase or I can't leave a bunch of programs on at the same time.

I don't know if you think you're winning this arguement TC but you aren't.

[QUOTE="jmaster299"]For the one billionth time....this thread is not about game play performance but total system performance....please actually read the thread....yes older games will not see the benefit from a dual core has they would from a higher single core, but the over all system performance will be increased when using a dual core. a dual core system is not bogged down with background programs...i can leave norton 360 and webroot spysweeper running in the background and see no drop in game play because my dual core can handle the load.Bebi_vegeta

Again show us benchmark application...

APPLICATIONS!!!

Can you see now!

How do you show benchmarks for this? Because what a dual core does is not about max FPS. It's about smoothness. Kind of like the difference between 1 and 2 GIGs of RAM in most games. It does not make the games "faster" but "smoother". Duals do both. There is no question that games like Bioshock, WiC, and HL2-EP2 run faster on duals than singles.

A slight change of subject, don't you think most benchmarks are stupid? Who cares about MAX FPS?? It's about minimum FPS, that's what really matters! While a game might reach 50FPS when pointed at the sky with nothing going on, who cares about that?? What matters is how slow it gets in the worst case scenarios!

All game benchmarks should show the LOW FPS marks and the average FPS. But the Low mark is still way more important than the average. And the max is pretty much useless information!

Are you talking to me?Infinite-Zr0

if your the tc then yes. if not then no.

and, btw, the main thing helping the cores out with single core based games is the FSB and L2 cache, not the dual cores. they (the games) have to be optimized for two cores before the second core will actually do anything.

Please, before you go about acting like you know what's what about processors, please, do some more reaserch and save all of us non-noobs who are in the know from the exasperation of trying to explain it to you.

I've told you people already my test come from Microsoft's Extender Resource Monitor and I don't have a way to post those results here. All degrading and insulting posts have been reported for abuse. So if your intention is to simply insulte me or other users I suggest you do it some where else because every negative post here will be reported.jmaster299

Well don't expect me to beleive you when you can't show any evidence of what your saying. I don't mind you having an opinion without facts, but were talking about facts now and you can't show evidence... why do you even post then?

For one, mine wasn't an insult. You just couldn't take criticism, and who ever modded me probably thought it wasn't worth reading my post to understand that it was just criticism.

Well anyway, you haven't proven anything and you probably won't at this rate.
What you're trying to do at this point is convince us.

Oh and I did that test too and it didn't show the same results you claimed

I've told you people already my test come from Microsoft's Extender Resource Monitor and I don't have a way to post those results here. All degrading and insulting posts have been reported for abuse. So if your intention is to simply insulte me or other users I suggest you do it some where else because every negative post here will be reported.jmaster299

=.=

Stop hiding behind that "Micrsoft's Extender Resource Monitor" of yours please. Theres no such thing as a dual-core CPU(or quad-core), providing double/quadraple the performance of your overall system performance.Theres an increament in peformance no doubt(and even this depends onthe application being run)Its just that simple, accept it.

And before you say "go get yourself a dual-core CPU and do some tests", you better be smarter than that to say it to me.

i was so close to lvl 37 and now im back at the begining :evil:Canine_Knight

LOL, never go to system wars then... it's even worst!

Ok this thread is a little unnecessary, obviously we all know that dual cores beat single cores regardless of what anyone says. Lets put it this way>>>> would you rather climb a rope with one hand or two hands? It's pretty obvious..so why is this up for debate. Dual Cores beat single cores..period..and the performance gains are very substantial compared to single cores.gamer082009

Yet another user without any benchmark...

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=2808&p=10

Here's a link comparing single core vs dual core in mobile computer. Dual core is better but not even near 50%.

The problem Makari is that hertz is not a measure of performance.

For technical user its very frustrating to see people say "oh, well, a 2ghz Quad-Core is effectively an 8ghz processor" - no, it's not, it doesn't work that way.

The benefit of dual-core processors right now is that they are cheaply available, a few games are starting to take advantage of them, and they offer more responsiveness. Most application performance gains have to do with increased cache and improvements to each single core, but it also helps that background tasks (antivirus scanning, video encoding, defragging, whatever) can be running on a second core.

For a desktop user, there are already dozens of single-threaded apps running simultaneously - while the scheduler handles these fine on a single-core system, a dual-core simply feels more responsive. Since we've effectively hit a brick-wall with single-core processor speeds anyway, the argument is kind of moot - is anyone really running out there buying a single-core processor anymore? If anything, Valve's method for going multi-threaded with the Valve engine suggests we should be aiming for quad-cores.

Performance gains will never hit 100% per core in practice, and the move to multi-core computing does require changes to how programmers think and code. Thus is life - but there's not arguing that that change is occuring.