|
|
| Page 1 of 1 |
nightlith
Posts: 744
Location: Land of Bagged Milk
|
 Posted: Thu, 16th Jul 2009 20:10 Post subject: Prepare yourself - stupid question ahead |
|
 |
I'm putting on my retard hat for a minute. When a dual or quad core chip is said to be '2.66GHz' is that per core or the sum of all cores?
(This isn't a troll attempt either btw. I seriously am so behind on pc tech these days it's embarassing)
i can has computar?!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73196
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Thu, 16th Jul 2009 20:15 Post subject: |
|
|
What are you ashamed of? If you don't ask, how will you learn.
It's per core, meaning each core runs at 2.66GHz. If you interested in this CPU design and want to learn more, I suggest reading this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-core
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nightlith
Posts: 744
Location: Land of Bagged Milk
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73196
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Thu, 16th Jul 2009 20:33 Post subject: |
|
|
Mostly heat, yes (although lower nm production line means ability for higher clocks), and also because focus has clearly moved away from who has the highest clock to who has the most efficient CPU. A lot of focus is put on parallel execution (meaning more commands are executed per clock) and SIMD instructions (this is how you have an Athlon 64 CPU with half the speed of a Pentium 4 beating it almost twice as fast).
If you remember, when the Athlons from AMD were competing against Intel's Pentiums, they used to give numbers to the models, symbolizing what their speed is comparable to from the Intel side. So if you had an Athlon 64 4000+, means it is at least as good as a P4 4000GHz. This was done for people who used to only look at the clock speed, but not at the technology behind it. 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 16th Jul 2009 21:59 Post subject: |
|
|
intels use those numbers aswell
cpu clock speed has absolutely nothing to do with performance anymore these days
do NOT even look at it
either trust the number-value or look at some benchmarks
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 18th Jul 2009 00:36 Post subject: |
|
|
intel doesn`t use this "numbers" ...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
