HELP! Trying to understand the logic behind CPU core speeds and whole CPU speed.

Hello All!

I seemed to understand how Intel and AMD marked the speed of their
processors until recently...
OK, I got the marking of AMD's x000+ range. Their actual speed was
lower in GHz but the output was that of a like for like in GHz terms.
With the introduction of Dual Core architecture AMD was still marking
their processors as xxxx+ (I have a dual core 4400+ AMD 64) then
suddenly all those PLUS things have gone and we are back to pure GHz
terms. But now my question is this:

Does a Dual Core processor marked at 2.4GHz mean 2 x 2.4GHz OR 2 x
1.2Ghz???


Thanks for help.

 

"dimon" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Hello All!
>
> I seemed to understand how Intel and AMD marked the speed of their
> processors until recently...
> OK, I got the marking of AMD's x000+ range. Their actual speed was
> lower in GHz but the output was that of a like for like in GHz terms.
> With the introduction of Dual Core architecture AMD was still marking
> their processors as xxxx+ (I have a dual core 4400+ AMD 64) then
> suddenly all those PLUS things have gone and we are back to pure GHz
> terms. But now my question is this:
>
> Does a Dual Core processor marked at 2.4GHz mean 2 x 2.4GHz OR 2 x
> 1.2Ghz???
>
>
> Thanks for help.
>
It means total speed, and fairly useless unless you have software to take
advantage of the dual processor.
Not much does at the moment so you are better sticking to a normal
processor. It is faster!

 

It is for a server, so it would take advandage of separate cores.
Thanks for your reply.


Brian wrote:
> "dimon" <> wrote in message
> news:...
> > Hello All!
> >
> > I seemed to understand how Intel and AMD marked the speed of their
> > processors until recently...
> > OK, I got the marking of AMD's x000+ range. Their actual speed was
> > lower in GHz but the output was that of a like for like in GHz terms.
> > With the introduction of Dual Core architecture AMD was still marking
> > their processors as xxxx+ (I have a dual core 4400+ AMD 64) then
> > suddenly all those PLUS things have gone and we are back to pure GHz
> > terms. But now my question is this:
> >
> > Does a Dual Core processor marked at 2.4GHz mean 2 x 2.4GHz OR 2 x
> > 1.2Ghz???
> >
> >
> > Thanks for help.
> >
> It means total speed, and fairly useless unless you have software to take
> advantage of the dual processor.
> Not much does at the moment so you are better sticking to a normal
> processor. It is faster!

 

"dimon" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Hello All!
>
> I seemed to understand how Intel and AMD marked the speed of their
> processors until recently...
> OK, I got the marking of AMD's x000+ range. Their actual speed was
> lower in GHz but the output was that of a like for like in GHz terms.
> With the introduction of Dual Core architecture AMD was still marking
> their processors as xxxx+ (I have a dual core 4400+ AMD 64) then
> suddenly all those PLUS things have gone and we are back to pure GHz
> terms. But now my question is this:
>
> Does a Dual Core processor marked at 2.4GHz mean 2 x 2.4GHz OR 2 x
> 1.2Ghz???

It is not just a matter of processor speed.
The Core architecture introduces a number of technologies that make the core
duo processors faster than those based on the older netburst architecture.
Even the slowest core processors perform on par with the fastest of the
netburst type in most situations.
To oversimplify the situation let's just say that core features a shorter
and wider pipeline, resulting in more things being done per clock cycle.
Also a lot of effort has been put into ensuring that the pipeline remains
full.
For a thorough explanation of the differences please visit.
http://www.behardware.com/articles/623-1/intel-core-2-duo-test.html

 

Thank you for the reply and an interesting artice, however it applies
to Intel cores and not to AMD cores.


Fred wrote:
> "dimon" <> wrote in message
> news:...
> > Hello All!
> >
> > I seemed to understand how Intel and AMD marked the speed of their
> > processors until recently...
> > OK, I got the marking of AMD's x000+ range. Their actual speed was
> > lower in GHz but the output was that of a like for like in GHz terms.
> > With the introduction of Dual Core architecture AMD was still marking
> > their processors as xxxx+ (I have a dual core 4400+ AMD 64) then
> > suddenly all those PLUS things have gone and we are back to pure GHz
> > terms. But now my question is this:
> >
> > Does a Dual Core processor marked at 2.4GHz mean 2 x 2.4GHz OR 2 x
> > 1.2Ghz???
>
> It is not just a matter of processor speed.
> The Core architecture introduces a number of technologies that make the core
> duo processors faster than those based on the older netburst architecture.
> Even the slowest core processors perform on par with the fastest of the
> netburst type in most situations.
> To oversimplify the situation let's just say that core features a shorter
> and wider pipeline, resulting in more things being done per clock cycle.
> Also a lot of effort has been put into ensuring that the pipeline remains
> full.
> For a thorough explanation of the differences please visit.
> http://www.behardware.com/articles/623-1/intel-core-2-duo-test.html