Cheat Engine

G0DFATHER

Im kinda new to comps and i was wondering why is an Intel Pentium Dual-Core Processor E2160 less than an older model

Localhost · Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 2:45 pm Post subject:

less? less clock speed?

You cannot compare different clock speeds with different processors... It is like comparing how sour red apples are to water.

Maybe not exactly, but even though it has a high clock speed does not mean it is better.

Another human · Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:24 pm Post subject:

Well the E2160 is roughly 1.80GH (Dual core).

It also depends what model you are comparing it to. The thing is, if it is single core, it usually has a higher clock speed (GH). But that is just one core. So lets say X is 2.5Gh, but is only one core. As to were Y is 2.0Gh but has TWO cores. Two times two equals 4.0GH. See what I mean? But then again it is not all about clock speed. Well, depends on what your running.

I prefer dual cores over everything. Not that many things you use every day utilize the four cores correctly. So for the most part the higher the clock speed the better the performance.

kls85 · Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:48 pm Post subject:

A long time ago the frequency determines how well a cpu performs so a 3GHz will definitely be faster than 2.8GHz. But the downside of that is the cpu gets too hot and products a lot of heat. So cpu makers needs to find a way for them to increase the performance of their new cpus without causing a nuclear meltdown. This is where the Core microacture comes in, lower speed per core, new and improved instructions, and with 2 cores (each core at 1.8GHz each) or more working together it can out perform the 3GHz P4.

The P4 is based on NetBurst while the E2160 is on the Core.

Another human · Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 4:19 pm Post subject:

^
Which is basically 4Gh. Somewhat. They divide the tasks up evenly?

How exactly do multi cores work? I know they are only better when you have multi thread program. But asides from that, dual cores (I.E. Wolfblade) burn them pretty bad. and I mean burn the quad cores.

Blank · Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 4:21 pm Post subject:

Nehalem · Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 4:23 pm Post subject:

Konata Izumi · Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 4:24 pm Post subject:

Another human · Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 4:30 pm Post subject:

No blank. Really.

I crap you not.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/e8500-phenom-9350e,2010.html

Heartless · Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 4:35 pm Post subject:

Your single core is 1core * 3GHz.
Your dual core is 2cores * 2GHz.

Your single core may run things fasters, but it canno multitask as well.

superweapons · Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 4:35 pm Post subject:

Intel's P4 really stressed CPU limits, their top of the line 3.8GHz P4 was plagued by severe thermal issues and limitations, as well as the amount of core voltage applied and the extremely high TDP. You weren't able to get much of an overclock on the stock cooler. One up-side is it's high 19x multiplier, which made it good for setting OC records with liquid nitrogen cooling on high performance boards.

You're also comparing two different zones, mid/high-end back in the day with the P4, and low end/budget with today's Core-based Pentium Dual Core. Obviously, higher-end processors (take the E8600 for example) are clocked much higher (3.33GHz in this case). The E2160 has really good overclocking capabilities, if you're armed with good RAM, PSU, and motherboard, so Intel could easily make a ~4GHz Intel Pentium Dual Core with a 10x multiplier (E2180), a 1600MHz FSB, and top-of-the-line air cooling. Of course, it's highly unlikely Intel would ever release that, it doesn't target much any segment, it would require above-stock cooling (not provided by Intel), and high CPU voltage.

This discussion is about clock speeds, it has nothing to do with the number of logical cores on a CPU, nor anything with AMD's processors.

Konata Izumi · Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 4:36 pm Post subject:

Sup3R C3r34L · Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 4:38 pm Post subject:

Another human · Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 4:39 pm Post subject:

Even in most games. Review the article.

^
They picked it based on price and power consumption.

Sup3R C3r34L · Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 4:42 pm Post subject:

don't need to.
alot of current games/apps don't take advantage of quads but anything yet to come will definitely support multicore, especially with octi-core technology just around the corner

my quad runs at 3.4Ghz anyway so even if a game only uses 2 cores (for now) that's ok with me Smile