Speed of Core 2 Duo

[g_goyal2000]

Hi.
I wanted to know what is the actual speed of a Intel Core 2 Due processor.
I mean, if it says that's it's a 1.8 GHZ processor, then does it mean that the actual speed is 3.6 GHZ or 1.8 GHZ?

[BBThumbHealer]

its 3.6 GHz !! thats why its C2D

[Pathik]

1.8 obviously.... u dont multiply clock speeds by the number of cores...

[BBThumbHealer]

if its 1.8 GHz , then y a 3.2 GHz Pentium IV is bad than the C2D ? ...

[cynosure]

EAch core independently works at 1.8GHz. Now you can play games and encode video at the same time

[faraaz]

Its like having 1 fast processor in series and 2 almost as fast processors in parallel...

[jal_desai]

Originally Posted by faraaz

Its like having 1 fast processor in series and 2 almost as fast processors in parallel...

no no buddy u r wrong.... if two are in parallel then the output will be less than the least... here..the multitasking is done in more efficient manner.... two 1.8 gigs will share the tasks tht are threaded one after the other. so mind u, the actual speed is not 3.6...it is 1.8 only but the tasks will finish up in almost the same time as it were on a 3.6 gigs pc.... hence loosely speaking, u can definitely treat a 1.8gigs core 2 duo as a 3.6 gigs pentium iv processor.

[faraaz]

Oh...so its like 2 fellows picking up a heavy box instead of a single fellow?

[jal_desai]

Originally Posted by faraaz

Oh...so its like 2 fellows picking up a heavy box instead of a single fellow?

ya ... wat an understanding man... absolutely right!

[g_goyal2000]

U'r confusing me guys. Please give straight forward answers.
Will it run at 1.8 or 3.6 GHZ?
Or will it give performance of a 3.6 GHZ performance?

[cynosure]

^^ It will run @ 1.8GHz but will be equal to P4 3.6 in terms of performance.
Its like you running and you running with steroids!! Two different cases but in latter you have a huge performance gain.

[g_goyal2000]

So a Core 2 Duo 1.8 GHZ is better than an AMD Athlon64 3200+ 2.0 GHZ (rated at 3.0 GHZ)???

[harryneopotter]

bang on target ....... actually a core 2 duo 1.8 ghz is even faster than a P4 3.6 hz as the basic architecture if a conroe procssors are is far better than older prescott cores....... and also the Cache size diff also boosts performance ...so a C2D 1.86 ghz is far far better then P4 3.6 or AMD 64 3200+ ..........

[Zeeshan Quireshi]

Originally Posted by g_goyal2000

So a Core 2 Duo 1.8 GHZ is better than an AMD Athlon64 3200+ 2.0 GHZ (rated at 3.0 GHZ)???

Actually a clock speed(Hertz) is not a measure of performance for a PC , it is a marketing tactic .

the basic unit for measuring performance is FLOPS(Floating Point Operations Per Second) , and in terms of FLOPS a Core 2 Duo > 2 x P4 3GHz

[faraaz]

General doubt...how does a Core 2 Duo rated at 2.0 GHz measure up against an AMD 64 bit dual core processor?? (I forgot what they are called...X2 maybe?) Lets assume for sake of comparison that the L1, L2 cache sizes etc are all the same..

[Dark Star]

See there are core architecture for giving performance boost not the sped nor the caches.... C2D have the most better Architecture than other available... till date So no point in compariing in terms of clock and cache.. Looks like no 1 reads digit

[g_goyal2000]

Originally Posted by Shashwat Pant

Looks like no 1 reads digit

Actually we do. But they reviewed it such a time back that don't remember.

[harryneopotter]

.... it was not really that much time back ... may be in october 2006 ... and yea its true that clock speed can not be used to measure performance against diff proccessors ... (mean b/w presscott and conroe or b/e amd and intel ..) but it can be used to compare speeds of similar proccies like P4 2.4 Vs P4 2.8, or C2D 1.86 or C2D 2.6 .. the higher the clock speed here ... better the performance as they have same architecture ...

[BULLZI]

front size bus(FSB) is also higher in conroe architecture than pentium IV

[Dark Star]

^ Ya C2d has quad pmped FSB i.e 266.5 x 4.. This is for higher bandwidth and better performance... WHile lower multiplier gives u an option to increase the FSB to a higher limit

[BULLZI]

yup fsb size of 1066

[fun2sh]

i still dont get why C2D is faster than any of the processor. can some1 elaborate it in detail and with some technical points. i read a lot on wikipedia abt C2d but still dont get the reason. I JUST UNDERSTAND THAT C@D IS MUCH FATER THAN OTHERS BUT WHY?? I DONT KNOW!!!! PLZ SOME1 ELABORATE ABT IT IN DETAIL. PLZ!!!!

[faraaz]

If you have to write 2000 lines of "I don't know why C2D is the fastest" alone, it will take you 12 hours maybe.

If you rope in one of your mates to help you out, you may finish your share's each in say 6 hours total. Whoa...what if he's actually faster than you are? He may take up the lions share and you will end up finishing in 5 hours.

The example I have given is not a DIRECT analogy, but atleast it goes a part of the way to explain how C2D works and is the fastest. As for why Intel is superior to AMD dual cores, I have no idea...(>.<)

[BULLZI]

Originally Posted by fun2sh

i still dont get why C2D is faster than any of the processor. can some1 elaborate it in detail and with some technical points. i read a lot on wikipedia abt C2d but still dont get the reason. I JUST UNDERSTAND THAT C@D IS MUCH FATER THAN OTHERS BUT WHY?? I DONT KNOW!!!! PLZ SOME1 ELABORATE ABT IT IN DETAIL. PLZ!!!!

The Core architecture, meanwhile, is the opposite of a speed demon; it's a "brainiac" instead. Core has a relatively short 14-stage pipeline, but it's very "wide," with ample execution resources aimed at handling lots of instructions at once. Core is unique among x86-compatible processors in its ability to fetch, decode, issue and retire up to four instructions in a single clock cycle. Core can even execute 128-bit SSE instructions in a single clock cycle, rather than the two cycles required by previous architectures. In order to keep all of its out-of-order execution resources occupied, Core has deeper buffers and more slots for instructions in flight.

Like other contemporary PC processors, Core translates x86 instructions into a different set of instructions that its internal, RISC-like core can execute. Intel calls these internal instructions micro-ops. Core inherits the Pentium M and Core Duo's ability to fuse certain micro-op pairs and send them down the pipeline for execution together, a provision that can make the CPU's execution resources seem even wider that they are. To this ability, Core adds the capability to fuse some pairs of x86 "macro-ops," such as compare and jump, that tend to occur together commonly. Not only can these provisions enhance performance, but they can also reduce the amount of energy expended in order to execute an instruction sequence.

Another innovation in Core is a feature Intel has somewhat cryptically named memory disambiguation. Most modern CPUs speculatively execute instructions out of order and then reorder them later to create the illusion of sequential execution. Memory disambiguation extends out-of-order principles to the memory system, allowing for loads to be moved ahead of stores in certain situations. That may sound like risky business, but that's where the disambiguation comes in. The memory system uses an algorithm to predict which loads are to move ahead of stores, removing the ambiguity.
See? Ahh. This optimization can pay big performance dividends.

for more info http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q3/core2/index.x?pg=2