Help with CPU differences

[Ddraig85]

OK, I currently have this CPU:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103533

I was thinking about upgrading to:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/CustRatingReview.asp?Item=N82E16819103547

I am having a hard time finding answers to some of my questions. What exactly are the difference in a single core and a duel core processor? Also, what does the Cache do for me? Will this be a good upgrade?

 

[BadBigBen]

Basically a DUAL CORE CPU is like having TWO CPU's... as the name implies, it has two cores...

with two core cpu's, you could effectively do Video Encoding and Play a game at the same time with hardly any Slow down... where as a Single Core you would notice the difference drastically...

The Cache MEM is the fastest MEM that you can have as it runs at the exact same speed as the CPU... General rule, the bigger the CACHE the faster the CPU can crunch those bits... in everyday work, ie. internet, Office, etc. it does not make much of a difference... the difference comes in the Gaming and the VIDEO editing department, where a bigger cache allows the CPU to function at its peak...

I hope I have answered some of your questions...

feel free to ask more or more detail...


Ben

"If it works don't fix it! If it doesn't use a sledgehammer..."

 

[cdogg]

Well, let's help you decide if you really need to make the upgrade.

First of all, both CPU's you are comparing run at 2.2GHz. The one you have now has 128KB of L1 cache, and 512KB of L2 cache. The Manchester 4200+ that you're looking at has the same amount of cache on each CPU core. So each core is going to perform about the same as the one you have now.

Now here's the deal. If you multi-task a lot or want to, and I mean running at least 3-4 CPU intensive tasks at once, then upgrading the Dual-core might be a good solution for you. However, if you don't mind playing a game and encoding video at different times (for example), then neither one is going to run any faster when done separately. In that case, it wouldn't make sense to upgrade.

There are a few exceptions. If you use programs like Adobe Premiere or Photoshop, which multi-thread themselves when multiple CPU's are detected, then you can see a HUGE difference on a dual-core CPU. Such applications are not that common yet, which is why many will just tell you that a single-core running at the same speed is just as good.

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[kmcferrin]

OK. A CPU has several "parts", but is generally divided into the "core", which is the silicon part that does the actual processing, and the "package", which includes the ceramic or organic structure that you touch, plus the pins, heatspreader, etc. A dual dual core CPU has two CPU cores in one package. It's roughly analogous to having two CPUs, without the expense of having to buy a motherboard with two CPU sockets.

Cache is a part of the CPU that is essentially extremely fast memory that the CPU uses to store data and instructions. Because the cache is so fast compared to main system memory, the CPU can retrieve frequently used data from the cache instead of main memory, which in turns speeds up processing. In general the more cache that a CPU has then the better.

In your specific case, it looks like you would be upgrading from a 2.2 GHz 512k cache CPU to a dual core 2.2 GHz 2x512k cache (512 for each core) CPU. Theoretically you would have twice the processing power, assuming that your motherboard supports the dual core CPUs.

Now the downside is that not all applications will take advantage of the second core. An application has to be specifically written in a way that lets it have two independent processes execute simultaneously (known as multithreading) to be able to use the second CPU or else the second CPU/core will sit idle.

The upside is that Windows NT, 2000, XP, and 2003 are all written to support multiple CPUs, so you will get some degree of benefit even if you are running single-threaded applications. For example, background tasks (like virus scanning) can run on the second CPU while you are running your application in the foreground without any slowdown. You could be ripping MP3s and doing something else at the same time without any noticeable slowdown.

On the even brighter side, you will see some benefit now when moving to dual core CPUs. Intel and AMD have already announced that the future is multi-core, and they are working on 4 and 8 core CPUs further down the line. That means that people who write software will be increasingly writing software that is multi-threaded, so in the future you should be able to take even greater advantage of the second core.

 

[paparazi]

Ddraig85
I did exactly this! went from a Athlon64 3500 to a Dual Core X2 4200.
Answering your three questions

1) Two processors built onto one physical core

2) Cache is extremely fast memory storage and can have considerable performance benefit when built into the CPU itself because it's "on die" and not slowed down by the system bus in any way.

3) It depends on how you use your PC
There isn't a massive performance leap between these two CPU's and you need to know that the real gains are in multi threaded and multi tasking applicasions so, if you are an avid gamer and don't care too much for having several other things on the go at the same time, a single core Athlon 64 4000 will give you about the same "in game" performance.
BUT!
If on the other hand you have many open screens, playing music, writing a letter, on MSN and you use specific software that can take advantage of the multithreading capabilities of the X2 (like photoshop for instance) you may find a dual core CPU a godsend because of the way it doesn't get bogged down in heavey use.

Am I glad I went from a 3500 single core to a dual 4200, yes! it suits me just fine thanx.
Martin




We like members to GIVE and not just TAKE.
Participate and help others.

 

[cdogg]

Paparazi,
In response to 3) - "[blue] single core Athlon 64 4000 will give you about the same "in game" performance.[/blue]"


I don't see where this is coming from. Most games are single-threaded. They do not run faster on dual-cores when all you benchmark is the game itself. The Venice 3500+ runs at the same speed and cache as the Manchester 4200+. And according to the benchmarks below, they are essentially equal in gaming performance (with the Venice holding a slight lead):

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/11/21/the_mother_of_all_cpu_charts_2005/page24.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/11/21/the_mother_of_all_cpu_charts_2005/page29.html

Now I realize there are some exceptions where the dual-core will outperform the single core in some games, but for the most part, the extra core shouldn't have much effect. I don't see how to justify spending $355 on the Manchester when you know you recently just spent $200+ on the Venice. To some people I'm sure, that's a small amount of money, but to me isn't worth the small amount of performance boost (unless you are an extreme power user).

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[Sympology]

cdogg,
think you misread him. He said a single cores give about the same performance as a dual core in games etc.

Stu..

Only the truly stupid believe they know everything.
Stu.. 2004

 

[cdogg]

Stu,

However, he also suggested that the dual-core 4200 would be about the same as the single core 4000. What I listed above were benchmarks that actually show the 3500 performing close, which is what Ddraig85 has now.

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[paparazi]

cdogg chill!

OK! perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly!

If you just game and benchmark then yes a 3500 and 4200 X2 are very similar.

But if you are multi-tasking, opening several windows, coming in and out of game, talking on MSN, ripping a video etc etc, the single core CPU simply gets bogged down and hangs, when the X2 copes.

This to me is real, and it makes a great deal of differance in the "real world" and how I use my PC,
I would say this is a true measure of performance.

I'm sure what I'm saying doesn't necessarily tally with benchmark statistics, I know you are technically correct so I appologise if I was misleading.

But going back to Ddraig85's last question "Will this be a good upgrade"
I would still answer by saying "It depends on how you use your PC" and of course how you define performance.
For me the upgrade was worth while and felt real and tangable.

I respect your opinion as always cdogg.


Martin



We like members to GIVE and not just TAKE.
Participate and help others.

 

[cdogg]

I'm chilled!

OK, but isn't the PRICE a factor to anyone besides me? Obviously if I had thousands to waste on upgrades each year, then sure why not.

All I'm getting at here is that it is often better to address the mainstream. Not many would see this as a wise investment.

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[paparazi]

Agreed,
There is a lot of price difference, give it 6/9 months and that probably will be a lot closer, X2's still have novelty value and hence are holding onto their prices where as others are slipping, as they should when new models are released.
I guess 939 X2's will drop like lead balloons when 940 Socket M2 becomes mainstream.
As a side note* AMD seem to be holding on to the new DDR2 M2 release, the reason for this is rumoured to be that at the moment going from DDR400 to DDR2667 would not make a noticeable difference, infact the older 939 platform together with fast (low latency) DDR 400 is said to hold a slight performance advantage.
AMD are holding out for the release of DDR2 800 which should swing the performance crown over to the new platform.
Martin

We like members to GIVE and not just TAKE.
Participate and help others.

 

[Ddraig85]

wow, thanks for the information. I am a hardcore gamer, but I don't do a lot of stuff in the background. I will definatly look around for a better upgrade.