i see some of the dual-core (i think) X2 processors like..4200+ with a 2.2 clock speed. Is this because there are TWO processors at 2.2? How does this effect computing power? do they do have the work each working as a 4.2? or can only 2.2ghz be given to any one process at any given time? I'm no expert.

3/2/2006 9:52:36 PM

Google could have answered this for you.


http://www.short-media.com/review.php?r=261

Quote :

"A dual core processor won't be twice as fast as a single core processor nor will it be as fast as a dual processor system. It will fall somewhere in the middle but there are going to be specific advantages. "

[Edited on March 2, 2006 at 10:08 PM. Reason : from the link]

3/2/2006 10:06:25 PM

The X2s though are still great processors, especially for games. Probably the best consumer processors on the market right now.

3/2/2006 10:11:55 PM

Well the 64's are great processors themselves, some of them with awesome OCing.

3/2/2006 10:14:48 PM

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/08/01/dual/

Tom's hardware agrees.

3/2/2006 10:15:49 PM

2.2 * 2 = 4.2 ?

3/2/2006 10:24:41 PM

lol, i missed that. That whole question could use some work.

Quote :

"do they do have the work each working as a 4.2?"

[Edited on March 2, 2006 at 10:26 PM. Reason : lol]

3/2/2006 10:25:53 PM

I just got a 4400+ and it's great. I finally slowed it down though. Granted:

I was:

Rendering in After Effects 6.5
Batch photo rendering in Photoshop CS2
Transferring stuff off my MP3 player (like 5 gigs of stuff)
Cruising the net
Talking on Trillian

It can take what you throw at it, that's for sure.

3/2/2006 10:35:47 PM

yeah, it took dvd video encoding, 5x files of rar compressing, xfering files cross hard drives, firefox and like 10 other apps open for my 3800+ X2 to show signs of slowing

in referring to the original question at hand, the AMD numbering system is to state the speed at which it is EQUIVALENT to, not the actual frequency, so although they don't have the same frequency as what Intel processors do, a 3800+ 'should' perform similarly to a 3.8Ghz Intel

dual-core processors (by comparison) are about 30% faster than their single-core counterpart across the board, faster if the app is multithreaded, slower if it's single threaded

[Edited on March 2, 2006 at 10:49 PM. Reason : .]

3/2/2006 10:48:50 PM

Quote :

"a 3800+ 'should' perform similarly to a 3.8Ghz Intel"

i dont think thats true anymore, show me some charts if im wrong though.


i have a pentium D 2.8GHz and i can get 100% utilization on both cores using dvd shrink..by itself. so i take it when you guys are talking about the boatload of apps takes to max out your proc you aren't using multi-processor capable software...

3/3/2006 12:42:30 AM

i have a 4200+ x2 and its pretty fast
i havent been able to really max it out that well
and you can set the affinity for any process to only work off one core
which is helpful for a lot of games that dont like or work off of 2 cores.

[Edited on March 3, 2006 at 10:15 AM. Reason : ]

3/3/2006 10:14:56 AM

the amd dual cores vastly out perform current intel chips

3/3/2006 2:23:04 PM

wow i murdered some sentences didnt i?


thank you Flying Dog.

3/3/2006 2:30:05 PM

CNET did a comparsion between the X2s and the P Ds. Wow that was a sad sad sad "match", AMD won in every single test.

Look it up and it should give you an idea.

3/3/2006 3:10:03 PM