Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 75485	2006-12-31 01:48:00	Intel Core 2 Duo, IS faster than 1 core in Single threaded apps/games	Master_Frost (9951)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
511229	2006-12-31 05:33:00	Yes DC is faster but some programs not supporting it go *** and have a fit so sometimes a single core is better for the moment once fixes come out then its all over. IMO DC is too early to adopt at the moment and I would only go DC when my current computer starts to slow down. (Plus single core chips are cheap as due to the the dual core cpus :D) Dude listen Core 2 Duo is faster in almost all SINGLE THREAD programs. The program does NOT NEED to support DC to benefit. This Benchmark shows 2 single thread game "Doom3" & "Halo" www.neoseeker.com I don't think I need to talk you through it lol Get it yet? still think these games need "fixes" to run better with dual core than single core?	Master_Frost (9951)
511230	2006-12-31 05:46:00	I am waiting for a right time to buy my new desktop. Maybe wait till they roll out Windows Vista, even though I'm running it with a poor graphics card.	msnforum (11610)
511231	2006-12-31 05:48:00	Just to add a bit for the confused The biggest problem is thinking ALL dual core models perform the same. THEY DON'T! Here is a quick breakdown. 1 Intel Pentium D dual core is "crap" and often slower in single thread apps and games vs Single core. 2 AMD X2 dual core is "generally" seen as a bit "slower" in single thread apps and games vs Single core. 3 Intel Core 2 Due is indisputably faster in most single thread apps and games vs Single core. To dumb it down as far as I can..................Vs Single core in a normal "single thread" app or game. Intel Pentium D .......Slower AMD X2...............Slower Intel Core 2 Duo....Faster	Master_Frost (9951)
511232	2006-12-31 06:40:00	Dude listen Core 2 Duo is faster in almost all SINGLE THREAD programs. The program does NOT NEED to support DC to benefit. Support may have been the wrong word :xmouth: Everything runs on DC but some programs have fits. Three games I know of are Rainbow Six, Counterstrike and Act of War that have known issues with some peoples DC's. Setting the processor to run one core fixes it though.	trinsic (6945)
511233	2006-12-31 08:14:00	I felt the need to start a thread to help certain members understand Dual core processors. No you didn't. You're just banging on about the Intel Core Duos. There is no anti dual core posse. JJJJJ had a problem running his MS Flight Sim game with a socket 939 x2 4200+ AMD. He then bought a single core 4000 AMD and has been happy with the game since. Unless you also have compared this game with those two CPUs then leave him to his own conclusions. I myself have an AMD dual core. The only thing I noticed was Warcraft 2 runs slowly. Not so badly I can't play it but enough to be noticable. Kind of like my mouse is moving through tar. Well its an old game..... Other than that I couldn't care less. We all know multi Core is the future, future games will use it and Intel is currently winning. So get over it, we all know all this already.	pctek (84)
511234	2006-12-31 11:28:00	No you didn't . You're just banging on about the Intel Core Duos . There is no anti dual core posse . JJJJJ had a problem running his MS Flight Sim game with a socket 939 x2 4200+ AMD . He then bought a single core 4000 AMD and has been happy with the game since . Unless you also have compared this game with those two CPUs then leave him to his own conclusions . I myself have an AMD dual core . The only thing I noticed was Warcraft 2 runs slowly . Not so badly I can't play it but enough to be noticable . Kind of like my mouse is moving through tar . Well its an old game . . . . . Other than that I couldn't care less . We all know multi Core is the future, future games will use it and Intel is currently winning . So get over it, we all know all this already . Do we ????? Trevor :)	Trev (427)
511235	2006-12-31 15:26:00	Ok, this is bugging me... (which is the reason that I am up at this hour :horrified ) You have stated that the C2D is faster because it is more efficient... that is all great, but HOW is it more efficient? My answer: the bottom of the line (E6300 because it seems to be the focus here) is made of 65nm (really really small (the smallest so far that has actually worked well)) architecture which means it can have a lot more transistors on the die (the little thingys that actually do the work) and the more it has the more it can process at one time, this is the secret to the Core 2 Duos performance and how it can beat higher clocked chips easily. Also due to this smaller architecture size it requires a smaller voltage (1.2V) which means it is more efficient power wise. Sigh... now back to bed :groan:	The_End_Of_Reality (334)
511236	2006-12-31 18:39:00	Ok, this is bugging me... (which is the reason that I am up at this hour :horrified ) You have stated that the C2D is faster because it is more efficient... that is all great, but HOW is it more efficient? My answer: the bottom of the line (E6300 because it seems to be the focus here) is made of 65nm (really really small (the smallest so far that has actually worked well)) architecture which means it can have a lot more transistors on the die (the little thingys that actually do the work) and the more it has the more it can process at one time, this is the secret to the Core 2 Duos performance and how it can beat higher clocked chips easily. Also due to this smaller architecture size it requires a smaller voltage (1.2V) which means it is more efficient power wise. Sigh... now back to bed :groan: Not only that but mine has 4MB cache on the chip and if only one core is being used then it gets that whole 4MB. It is dynamically allocated. I have yet to see a game have fits with it. Sure I have some games that don't work under XP that worked with 98 but that was to be expected.	Big John (551)
511237	2006-12-31 18:42:00	Of course it all depends on what you mean by "better" and "faster". I have no iterest in the AMD v Intel speed war. I have no interest in benchmarks based on business programs or on specific games. My interest is 90% based on fs9 and FS X. Both programs were designed for single core cpu's. Of course they will run quite well on dual core, even if they can not use the cpu's full capacity. I have compared both types of cpu, a x2 4200+ and a single 4000+, on performance tests showing cpu useage. With just the basic program installed there is very little difference between them. But as extras are added the x2 useage jumps dramaticly. With my setup and the game running at idleing speed cpu is shown to use about 90% resources.The 4000+ about 60%. Then when extra capacity is needed the x2 tries to get it by reducing quality settings in the program. Then it seems to try store more and more in memory. When this is not enough it just shuts the the program down. I have often seen cpu and memory useage at 100% With FSx it is not possabe to run it and anything like maximum with either cpu. Fps is no indication of cpu capacity. With "photoreal" scenery fps can drop to as low as 10 and the program starts to stutter. But cpu resources do not seem to be affected. So for the present I will stick with single core. In the future, who knows? And the next person who tells me Dual core is the way of the future, wil get something thrown at them.	JJJJJ (528)
511238	2006-12-31 18:58:00	Not only that but mine has 4MB cache on the chip and if only one core is being used then it gets that whole 4MB. It is dynamically allocated. Yes, that is true... how could I forget about the 4MB of cache :groan: And the next person who tells me Dual core is the way of the future, wil get something thrown at them. He he he, DC IS CURRENT, quad core and even more cores are the way of the future :D	The_End_Of_Reality (334)
1 2 3 4