Single core @ 2.9ghz vs. dual core at 2.4ghz - Which is faster?

[gplracer]

What would be faster an AMD dual core at 2.4ghz or a single core at 2.9ghz?

 

[Painman]

Totally depends on what you're doing...

 

[DaNorthface]

you're a golden member.. you should have read enough to know

 

[mroverclocker]

"you're a golden member.. you should have read enough to know" lol... to answer your question. single 2.9 is faster than dual 2.4 in single threaded apps and games. only if you like to run bench marks all day u'll be happy with 2.4 ghz dual core.

 

[Furen]

Originally posted by: mroverclocker
"you're a golden member.. you should have read enough to know" lol... to answer your question. single 2.9 is faster than dual 2.4 in single threaded apps and games. only if you like to run bench marks all day u'll be happy with 2.4 ghz dual core.

I THINK I beg to differ. I think the benchmark crowd is the one that prefers single-core chips over dual-cores. Personally, I use multiple intensive applications at once so having the two cores available is a huge boost. Also, if you use anything multithreaded (like a video transcoder) then a dual-core chip will run circles around a single-core one.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Furen

Originally posted by: mroverclocker
"you're a golden member.. you should have read enough to know" lol... to answer your question. single 2.9 is faster than dual 2.4 in single threaded apps and games. only if you like to run bench marks all day u'll be happy with 2.4 ghz dual core.

I THINK I beg to differ. I think the benchmark crowd is the one that prefers single-core chips over dual-cores. Personally, I use multiple intensive applications at once so having the two cores available is a huge boost. Also, if you use anything multithreaded (like a video transcoder) then a dual-core chip will run circles around a single-core one.

I agree...most of the regular hot benchmarks show no advanatge for dual cpus....

I say your answer fits your junior member status...

 

[gplracer]

you're a golden member.. you should have read enough to know

Thanks for that comment junior member. You add a lot to our community.

I guess I should have worded the post differently. Obviously most programs do not take advantage of the dual cores. So I guess in those one core running at a higher speed would be faster. I just wondered in the programs that do take advantage of a dual core if the dual core is a lot faster since it is running considerably slower at 2.4ghz instead of the single core running at 2.91ghz. Also, it would seem obvious that the dual core system would be better when running multiple applications.

 

[BitByBit]

Personally, I'd much rather have a 2.4GHz dual than a single 2.9GHz.
I recently bought a Dell 6400 (1.66GHz Yonah) and now I'll never even consider buying a single core system in the future. Even in light multitasking, you notice the difference.
I believe single core processors will shortly disappear from all but budget systems, especially when multithreaded software become more widespread.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: gplracer

you're a golden member.. you should have read enough to know

Thanks for that comment junior member. You add a lot to our community.

I guess I should have worded the post differently. Obviously most programs do not take advantage of the dual cores. So I guess in those one core running at a higher speed would be faster. I just wondered in the programs that do take advantage of a dual core if the dual core is a lot faster since it is running considerably slower at 2.4ghz instead of the single core running at 2.91ghz. Also, it would seem obvious that the dual core system would be better when running multiple applications.

check out this link and you will scalability of real world apps and not syntethic benches...you will see scaling from 1 core to 4 cores...

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=28&threadid=1830732&enterthread=y

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...hreadid=1637764&enterthread=y&arctab=y

You will see scability close to 100% and down to 52% in the real world test I tested in the 2nd link...That means potentally a dual core 2.4ghz could be as fast as a single core 3.6ghz (if the single core scaled perfectly)....

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: Furen


I THINK I beg to differ. I think the benchmark crowd is the one that prefers single-core chips over dual-cores. Personally, I use multiple intensive applications at once so having the two cores available is a huge boost. Also, if you use anything multithreaded (like a video transcoder) then a dual-core chip will run circles around a single-core one.

For some benchmarks that's true, but for some of the big popular ones (3DMark05/06) dual core cpus get a nice boost over their single core brothers. From testing that I've seen a single core A64 needs an ~400MHz advantage over a dual core A64 when running 3DMark05 in order to be equal. In 3DMark06 it's not even a contest between the two.

 

[gplracer]

Last two posts, that was the information that I was curious about. Thanks!

 

[RussianSensation]

dual core 2.4ghz A64 is hardly slow. That is 4800+ speeds. Sure 2.9ghz will be faster in games in benchmark scores, but the videocard will show signs of limitation first and foremost making 2.4ghz vs. 2.9ghz almost irrelevant for gaming situations.

On the other hand, in all tasks that are cpu dependent, the difference will be massive. So to conclude, in situations where 2.9 will be faster, it wont be significant, but vice versa, when dual core will come in handy, it'll be widely noticeable.

Interactive cpu charts

 

[jiffylube1024]

Gaming: 2.9 GHz. Multitasking: Dual Core 2.4 GHz.

Single threaded benchmarks: 2.9 GHz. Multithreaded benchmarks: Dual Core 2.4 GHz.

Serious Work: 2.4 GHz dual core. Serious play: 2.9 GHz dual core. REALLY serious play: 2.4 GHz dual core.

Yes, I like to be ambiguous .

 

[lopri]

I went back to a 3.0GHz single core from a 3.0GHz dual-core. For some reason my games feel snappier. (Not to mention the whole system runs 10~20C cooler at any given time) Admittedly I keep my machine extremely clean (have a 2nd rig for dirty works) and while playing game there is nothing running behind. When I had a dual-core, even at same frequency with a single-core, games didn't feel that snappy. It's important to note the difference of being snappy and being free from occasional lags. Yah with a single-core, you'll get an occasional lag depends on what your OS wants to do while gaming, but other than that, I felt like my games were flying, which I could not feel with a dual-core.

This is such an irony to me because I've been a vocal supporter of dual-cores, but I can't explain it any other way. I'm also guessing the OS/drivers/applications, as well as the current dual-core architectures themselves, are not as efficient as it should be. A Recent review of Anand somewhat agreed to my hypothesis.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2736&p=9

At the same clock frequency, Opteron 144 is leading Opteron 165 in today's gaming. Time and time again I see results like this. Sure the opposite results are also abundant, but even a few example like this seem to convince me my own theory. (I mean, in an ideal world, dual-core should NEVER be slower than a same-frequency single-core) Also I noticed most video card benchmarks still ustilizes FX-57 (or an OC'ed equivalent) instead of dual-core processors on various websites.

Again, I believe it's imperative that you keep your system relatively clean to actually experience this. If I have everything I have installed in one system, dual-cores will be faster no matter what, for sure.

 

[bjc112]

What chips are they?

The single core is in fact overclocked, and the dual core may not. I gave my 2.9ghz capable 3000+ for my x2 @ 2.7ghz..

I am more than willing to sacrifice 300-400 mhz for a 2nd core.

 

[imported_Crusader]

I wont be buying dual core till reverse hyperthreading.

Unless you make lots of money with your PC doing editing ect.. (in which case you prob already would have had a dual CPU setup years ago no doubt), single core is the way to go. Esp considering HardOCPs latest findings.

Too many bugs,not enough benefit for 90% of consumers yet.

Revese hyperthreading and I'm in.

Check link, think about it.. then declare DC a waste of time for gamers, admit you dont do damn near enough work in DC apps to make it worth the purchase price and move on.
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTAwMiwxNiwsaGVudGh1c2lhc3Q=

 

[lopri]

Originally posted by: bjc112
What chips are they?

The single core is in fact overclocked, and the dual core may not. I gave my 2.9ghz capable 3000+ for my x2 @ 2.7ghz..

I am more than willing to sacrifice 300-400 mhz for a 2nd core.

If you're asking me - from 3.0GHz Opteron 165 to 3.0GHz Opteron 146.

I've also seen the HardOCP results and they're in line with my hypothesis. However, it should not be ignored that dual-cores WILL give you smoothness (which single-cores won't) in day-to-day usage. Task switching, browser plug-ins, and even PDF viewing etc., will all be smoother with dual-cores. I happen to have a 2nd rig and my main rig is reserved for CPU-heavy tasks (single-threaded).

I understand that not everyone has 2 systems at their disposal so in the end I tend to agree that dual-cores is the way to go. But if you have 2 rigs, if you're not a heavy multi-tasker (which I believe are most people), if you tend to keep your machine relatively clean and don't mind occasional lags, single-cores will give just as good (or sometimes better/snappier) experience.