processer speed vs cores

Is there a way for a simple man to compare processer speeds to mutple core machines?

I.E. is a single core pent 4, 3 ghz comp faster than a quad 2.5 ghz?

May be a stupid question. take it easy on me.

I kinda understand the difference. I just want to figure out how to do some simple math when comparing.

---

› See More: processer speed vs cores

This may be overkill, but check out the CPU comparison charts at this webpage:

PassMark CPU Benchmark Charts

Actually, dual cores should always perform batter than single ones.

This is because once one of the cores is used fully, the other can take all the burden off the other by operating. It is a system in peace .

Originally Posted by nicknrm

Actually, dual cores should always perform batter than single ones.

This is because once one of the cores is used fully, the other can take all the burden off the other by operating. It is a system in peace .

And thats what I was thinking. But as I understand it not all, or most programs are written in a way that takes advantage additional cores. I didnt think the additional cores caught the overflow. I was under the impression that the task was broken down and dispersed amoung the additional cores In addition (not sure of this) but for example a 2.0 ghz quad does not equal 8 ghz of proccessing speed. And I am the first to admit I Dont Know. Thats why I am asking the question.

What I do is normal web stuff vid clips, forums, shop, ect. What I need the power more for is ripping and transcoding movies. Which takes me about twice as long as it would to watch the movie.

I am pretty sure that I can easly get to the point of overkill. Where I am just wasting money. I have been around long enough ( used to use DOS) to know the life span of most tech is short and that the high end comp depreciate like water through a drain. I want to get just slightly more than what I need.

Yes, a 2.5GHz Quad would be much, much faster than a 3.0GHz Pentium 4. It will often of course depend on whether the application in question supports multi-core processing however. You are correct that a 2.0GHz Quad would not equal 8.0GHz of speed. You are still getting just 2.0GHz of processing power, except it is shared across the cores. Four cars towing a huge boulder traveling at 30mph each, does not mean it will be pulled at 120mph. It will however lighten the load on each car by a significant amount .

Currently, Quad Cores are a bit pointless. There are very few programs that support a full Quad architechture yet and so the full power is never usually utilised (except in high demanding areas such as gaming). If the program was designed for a Dual Core, you'll most likely find the program will only utilise 2 cores of the machine. I would say in your scenario, that a quad core would be overkill (unless of course you are working with high definition content when transcoding). For mere web based use, even a decent Single Core would be more than enough.

A Dual Core would probably be your best bet (Or maybe a low end Quad Core). Quad Cores probably won't be fully utilised for a good while yet, and by the time they are, better ones will have probably reached the shelves. A Dual Core would cost less in most situations and you would be more likely to fullfill the lifespan of it.

Hope this answers a couple of your questions .

Originally Posted by Zarphor92

Currently, Quad Cores are a bit pointless. There are very few programs that support a full Quad architechture yet and so the full power is never usually utilised (except in high demanding areas such as gaming). If the program was designed for a Dual Core, you'll most likely find the program will only utilise 2 cores of the machine. I would say in your scenario, that a quad core would be overkill (unless of course you are working with high definition content when transcoding). For mere web based use, even a decent Single Core would be more than enough.

A Dual Core would probably be your best bet (Or maybe a low end Quad Core). Quad Cores probably won't be fully utilised for a good while yet, and by the time they are, better ones will have probably reached the shelves. A Dual Core would cost less in most situations and you would be more likely to fullfill the lifespan of it.

I just bought a quad core laptop, an HP with an 18 inch monitor and 8 gigs of RAM. The salesman at HP said I'd have a laptop that would be good for the next 10 years.

But...I'm taking it back for reasons not related to the quad core. I'll be buying the same exact model but this time around I'm going to customize it with a duo core and not a quad. I learned a lot from your post, thank you.

if its showing a lower speed.. its because that Intel/ Amd has speed step/ cool n quiet technology

what these both essentially does is to reduce the speed of the processor so that the heat can be reduced so that the power consumption is also reduces.. this is an endeavor of energy star systems optimization.....

but that doesn't mean that you have reduced performance.. when you need the speed the most it revs up to the max.. or the level required...

its now just like a car.. you dont have to race the engine every moment you are idling.. you can as well.. be quiet...
so that the deal.. rev when you need....

the duo basically means that you have two. Yes its much better coz when one is totally busy handling a task, the other is still free. in other words if you are doing a demanding task with a single processor then your pc would also be quite slow if yo wanted to do somthing else at the same time. with a dual core the second task will be as fast as if it was the only task.

more cores = faster speed.