# dual core vs single core



## Magicalpops

is a dual core 2 GHz processor better than a single core 3 GHz? if so could you tell me how

thanks


----------



## Bodaggit23

Generally yes.

Clock speeds may be faster, but two cores will be faster than one.

Imagine you have 10 gallons of water.

You need to get that water into small containers.

All you have is one hose and a funnel.

Now imagine you had two slightly smaller hoses and funnels.

Two cores will potentially move more data, even though at a slightly 
slower rate than a single core.


----------



## aviation_man

Very nice analogy


----------



## Jamin43

aviation_man said:


> Very nice analogy



Additionally - most people do some sort of Multi-tasking with their PC's. 

Whether it be Virus scan and surfing the web 

OR

Listening to Music / Online Radio while using another application 

OR

any other combination you could think of.  If one Core is dedicated to 1 application - you can freely work on the other core with your other application - and not worry about overworking a single core - that ultimately freezes up your PC.

Using the hose example - you have 2 jugs of water - funneling into 1 hose - at a Y connection - OR - having 2 jugs of water each with their own hoses


----------



## Shane

Bodaggit23 said:


> Generally yes.
> 
> Clock speeds may be faster, but two cores will be faster than one.
> 
> Imagine you have 10 gallons of water.
> 
> You need to get that water into small containers.
> 
> All you have is one hose and a funnel.
> 
> Now imagine you had two slightly smaller hoses and funnels.
> 
> Two cores will potentially move more data, even though at a slightly
> slower rate than a single core.



Great way of explaining :good:


----------



## BigSteve702

dont forget the weight of the water and the act of it being forced through the two smaller hoses, you'd get more of a jet stream out of the two separate smaller hoses... showing the dual-cores ability to push smaller data faster :

this hose deal is fun.
and overclocking would be like getting a vaccuum seal on the jugs and finding a piston to push the water through the same hoses faster 

this is just awesome, lets keep it going


----------



## Zangetsu

I won't be going along with you guys... I am too bad at it.

BUT! If your software doesn't support Dual core, well... bad luck ^_^.


----------



## Magicalpops

I understand now  is there a point, like when a single core ???GHz runs better than a dual core ???GHz? or would the more cores you have always make it better no matter what GHz it ran at?

ooo one more question. when you have any processor with more than one like a 3GHz quad core for example. are there 4 processors each running at 3GHz?


----------



## Twist86

Magicalpops said:


> I understand now  is there a point, like when a single core ???GHz runs better than a dual core ???GHz? or would the more cores you have always make it better no matter what GHz it ran at?
> 
> ooo one more question. when you have any processor with more than one like a 3GHz quad core for example. are there 4 processors each running at 3GHz?




Well a 3ghz single core will be slower then 2ghz dual-core....you can't compare the ghz between the two.

The dual-core is superior in technology which makes it faster even if you compare 1 core vs 1 core. Things like L2 and L3 cache also come into play here making it better then single-cores. 


Also yes my quad runs 4 cores @ 3.2ghz each....you don't add it and say "16.8ghz" you will get laughed at


----------



## 2048Megabytes

It is difficult to compare many processors by simply comparing clock speeds.  Processors with newer technology can perform more calculations per clock cycle than an older central processing units.

For example look at an Intel Core 2 Duo E7200 (2.53 gigahertz) Processor versus an Intel Pentium D Processor 960 (3.6 gigahertz) processor.  The E7200 is a faster processor than the Pentium D 960.


----------



## konsole

I would take a dual core 2 ghz over a single core 3 ghz, but not a quad core 2 ghz over a dual core 3 ghz.  I don't do much heavy mutlitasking so I'm more attracted to the faster clocked 2 cores.  That will probably change within a year or so though.


----------



## Magicalpops

ooo i thought it was mainly about the GHz. now i understand why ^-^ thanks mateys!


----------



## Gooberman

When I first saw this I thought someone brought back an old thread


----------



## lukie01

Yes. Because it's a dual core. It normally beats a single core. Even though it is 3ghz it will handle much better


----------



## 87dtna

On my old setup I tried to stick in a single core athlon 64 I have....the 1640 LE, which is 2.6ghz and 1mb of L2 cache.  I overclocked it to 3.0ghz, and played Call of Duty, got some bad lag while playing.  Then I stuck in a 4600+ dual core, which is 2.2ghz and 2x512kb of L2 cache, so same amount of cache and 800 less mhz, played the game flawless.


----------



## JohnJSal

Zangetsu said:


> I won't be going along with you guys... I am too bad at it.
> 
> BUT! If your software doesn't support Dual core, well... bad luck ^_^.



This isn't necessarily true, though, is it? Software doesn't have to be designed to take advantage of two or more cores in order for you to see an improvement in performance. It could simply be, like the two hoses, that each core is running separate processes.


----------



## Fatback

JohnJSal said:


> This isn't necessarily true, though, is it? Software doesn't have to be designed to take advantage of two or more cores in order for you to see an improvement in performance. It could simply be, like the two hoses, that each core is running separate processes.



I believe it is from the things I have read. Certain software can only use how many cores it was designed for but an update can always fix that. I think games are the same way. I'm not 100% sure on this but from what I understand that's the way it works.


----------



## lukie01

It's hard to tell. Depending on the processor. But normally a Dual Core is quicker because it is split into two and it can handle more. (Normally)


----------



## 2048Megabytes

Most probably already know this but I will state it anyway.  Processors that are more recent can perform more calculations per clock cycle than older processors.

For example look at an Intel Core 2 Duo E7200 (2.53 gigahertz) Processor versus an Intel Pentium D Processor 960 (3.6 gigahertz) processor. The E7200 is a better processor than the Pentium D 960.  It will very likely run almost all software better than a Pentium D 960.

Even if a program is only designed to run off a single-core processor the more modern dual-core would very likely run it more efficiently.  This is because a single core of the dual core processor is more efficient at running software than an older single core processor.


----------



## JohnJSal

2048Megabytes said:


> Most probably already know this but I will state it anyway.  Processors that are more recent can perform more calculations per clock cycle than older processors.
> 
> For example look at an Intel Core 2 Duo E7200 (2.53 gigahertz) Processor versus an Intel Pentium D Processor 960 (3.6 gigahertz) processor. The E7200 is a better processor than the Pentium D 960.  It will very likely run almost all software better than a Pentium D 960.
> 
> Even if a program is only designed to run off a single-core processor the more modern dual-core would very likely run it more efficiently.  This is because a single core of the dual core processor is more efficient at running software than an older single core processor.



Great way to explain it.


----------

