I know that question alone doesnt makes any sense but this a question which in my mind that if we get a dual core 1.8GHZ processor and run a multithread application on it to utilize both the threads. The maximum output should be max to 3.6GHz. Which means that if we buy a single 3.6GHz processor, that would be better coz it will give the same output for multithreaded applications and a lot better output for single thread application. May be I am wrong but this will make lots of things clear, if its true. What do you guys think?
Well, a dual core 1.8 GHz CPU doesn't equal a 3.6 GHz CPU. So, yes, in theory a 36 would be better than a 1.8 dual core. But that would only be 100% true if they were exactly the same architecture. For example, the 1.86 GHz Core 2 Duo will blow, say, a P4 overclocked to 3.4 GHz out of the water (the only reason I use overclocking is because 1.8 GHz is the lowest frequency in a dual core I could find and 3.2 GHz was the highest I could find, but the principle is the same).
Actually the answer's no. Here's the thing. The problem isn't in processing power. The fact of the matter is that a single core cpu cannot do two things at once. It has to do a bit of one, stop, start the other and so forth, whereas a dual core cpu can continuously work on two things at the same time, without interference. So provided the two cpus have the exact same architecture, a 3.6ghz would beat a dual 1.8ghz in singlethreaded apps but it wouldn't in a multithreaded one. But since dual core cpus are high end products, their clock is higher than their single core counterpart in most of the cases, which makes the dual core cpu better in everything. Now I know Conroe cpus have very low clocks, but since it's a different architecture, clocks aren't objects of comparison.
Agreed the answer is no. Clock speed does not equal CPU efficiency (how well it gets work done). Look at a single core p4 against a single core celeron. If they were the same clock speed 3 GHz, the p4 would perform better. They both are the same speed, so why is that true? Because it's not about speed. It's about how well data is managed with the given speed and how well it works with memory.
I am completely disagree with you here. Celerons doesnt have Catche Memory and have lower FSB. Thats why they are slow and cheap. You cannot compare Celeron with Pentium's.......
But you can only upgrade to higher specs if the clock speed of your computer is good. I mean you cant add 2GB of RAM in 1GHz processor. Can u? I know that the whole system doesnt just works on Clock speed. Other things matters as well like RAM, HDD, Catche etc etc... but this will make the topic broader. I m not talking about everything, I m just talking about Processors. Is it the same thing or different?
No. The Celeron's that are contemporary with those Pentiums use the same core, or maybe the previous core. The cache amount does not make the architecture here. The cache size may be part of a different core, but is not the defining feature. The pipelines and data path are the place where you get the changes. Additionally, certain executions may differentiate cores. If you take a Celeron and a Pentium with, say, a Prescott core, and with the same FSB and clock speed, you will find the performance delta is not that great. Intel uses a slower FSB and enables less cache on the Celerons...that is the main difference, and not due to architecture. In the case of the AthlonXP vs the Athlon64, most of the performance of the A64 is because the memory controller is on the CPU core. The AXP and other 'traditional' CPUs did not have an integrated memory controller. This was the main feature of a northbridge chipset and why single chip chipsets like the nForce 3 and nForce 4 families came that way. Most of the real estate used was removed. The 64-bit extentions do provide an increase, but only in a 64-bit OS environment. Even then, it's not the CPU itself, but the 64-bit environment giving more addressable space.
