Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili ( Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.
This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.
[http://forums.3dtotal.com/showthread.php?t=62...]
Click here to search for discussions with Omgili discussions search engine.
 |
What does Intel Core2 Duo 2.4GHz mean ? - Threedy Forums
I just brought this Fujitsu Laptop and upgraded the Ram to 4G but I don't understand what does "Intel Core2 Duo Processor T83005 (2.4GHz, 3MB L2 cache, 800MHz)" mean.
Does it mean two 1.2G processors are placed together to simulate 2.4G ?
Or two 2.4G processors to simulate 4.8Ghz.
Or do I have to take up a class in parallel computer to know it's none of the above ?
I just want to do my 3D...ha ha ha
Teach me fellow threedy member.
|
|
|
I am not sure about this, so don't take my word for it.
It is 2X 2.4 Ghz, but that does not mean you can add the numbers to get a 4.8 Ghz.
I thought it was that each processor can do different tasks at the same time, so everything will go faster, because it divides work over two processors.
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong?
|
|
Yep, it's two 2.4Ghz cores but they don't multiply up.
Basically if you have an application that can use multiple processors then you will get a boost.
Mental Ray is a good example as each processor will be assigned a bucket to render within the final image, so you will have two buckets being rendered "at 2.4GHz" at a time instead of just one.
Note that this doesn't necessarily mean half the render time of a single 2.4GHz processor though as they still have to share certain bits of the hardware (I/O buses and so on)
|
|
|
Arh I see...
So...technically if it's not for the fact that they are sharing certain resources theoretically, I have a 4.8GHz processor ?
|
|
Nope, not really!
You have two 2.4 GHz processors working at the same time with independent chip-based caches (one per core), so there's another difference.
A single 4.8GHz processor would probably have the same onchip cache size as just one of the cores of your dual core processor.
These things are never as straight forward as you think!
If you look at the following URL then you will see what the relative performances are like and how a dual xxx does not give the same performance as the single core equivalent if it was two times the rating...
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/common_cpus.html
Technology, it's like comparing apples with apples, except the apples are different each crop...
|
|
|
The URL is Swell Perversonality !
So....with each having an independent cache system, it should be faster but because they share the same band width from a single bus system etc hence it is slower...
erm....ok....ok I can pretend to understand that....ha ha ha
|
|
It's all far too complex.
Have a look at the 1.6GHz CPUs on that chart...
Some single core 1.6GHz give better performance than some of the dual core 1.6GHz processors for example!
Long gone are the days where a faster clock speed indicates a faster processor, though in fairness that's been the case since they introduced the SX and DX versions of CPUs back in the 386 series
|
|
|
This is horribly oversimplified and assumes everything is equal but think of it like this...
with a single core you've got one pipe squeezing data out of a 1 pipe sized hole - this is fine and very easy to understand.
with a dual core you've got two pipes trying to squeeze data out of a 1 pipe sized hole - if the amount of data combined exceeds the size of the hole you get a bottleneck.
dual core is better than single core when you're trying to do two things at once - you can pump data down the two pipes in at the same time rather than having to wait for a space in the queue (the swapping takes time)
2 independent CPUs is better than both because there are 2 pipes and 2 1 pipe sized holes - you can actually pump twice as much data through.
like I said, this is horribly oversimplified and doesn't take into account the fact that there's a massive bottleneck when you get to system memory
|
|
|
|