Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary. Now with pictures!
- Posted on
January 3, 2008, 2:02 pm
rate this thread
- Pay £165 for a Intel Dual Core E6850 (clocked @ 3.0GHz)
- Pay £160 for a Quad Core Q6600 (clocked @ 2.4GHz)
Now to my untrained eye, the quad-core seems like an easy choice. Am I
correct, or is the performance benefit from the 2 additional cores
completely lost by the low bandwidth connection between the 2 dies, as
mentioned in a Wikipedia article below:
"A quad-core CPU (as a two-die set in particular), however, can rarely
double the processing ability of each of its constituent halves (e.g.
the Kentsfield rarely doubles the ability of the Conroe), due to a
of performance resulting from connecting them (i.e. sharing the narrow
memory bandwidth, and operating system overhead of handling twice as
many cores and threads)."
Will all applications for Windows eventually become multi-threaded and
fully utilise a quad core setup? Because if so then surely the 2.4GHz
quad core would outperform the 3.0GHz dual core in the future?
Basically this comes down to dual core vs. quad core, and I'm hoping
there's a clear consensus about which to buy!
- » Newest MemTest86, MemTest86+ incompatible with Sandy, Ivy chipsets?
- — Next thread in » Computer Hardware