3.6ghz Dual Core vs. 2.8ghz Quad Core

Discussion in 'iMac' started by mackage, Apr 23, 2011.

  1. mackage macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2011
    #1
    Did anyone ever notice that the geekbench scores comparing these two processors in the 2010 iMacs are VERY close?

    I am still a huge fan of a high clock speed because alot of programs and applications don't take full advantage of all the cores in a quad core with a slower clock speed. Clock speed is still a good thing. The 3.6ghz is a dual core with hyperthreading so it has 2 virtual cores and 2 actual cores with 4 mb of cache, while the 2.8ghz is a true quad core with hyperthreading so it has 4 virtual cores and 4 actual cores with 8 mb of cache.

    The geekbench results score them very close. If I had to choose....it would be the 3.6ghz because I think the higher clock speed will give you more of an advantage on a daily basis.

    It seems that most of the new Sandy Bridge processors that will be in the new iMacs won't have very high clock speeds, except for the very high end upgrade.
     
  2. iMikeT macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Location:
    California
    #2
    Ok. Are we supposed to be impressed at some point? :rolleyes:
     
  3. mackage thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2011
    #3
    This is a forum where people discuss facts about the iMac.

    Are we suppose to be surprised that you posted again with nothing factual or meaningful to add? It seems to be your M.O..
     
  4. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #4
    I believe turboboost is improved in sandy bridge so single threaded apps will be able to run fast without shutting down all cores. Or something like that.
     
  5. iMikeT macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Location:
    California
    #5

    srsly braa? ditz all boutz cluck spds! cluk-a-dodle-doo!
     
  6. spacepower7 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    #6
    The 2010 2.8 is an i5 that doesn't have virtual cores? The 2009 i7 2.8 does have virtual cores.

    I think I'm right?
     
  7. TMRaven macrumors 68020

    TMRaven

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    #7
    The max clock speed of the quad core is 3.6ghz while in single core mode, while the max clock sped of the dual core was only either 3.8 or 3.9ghz while in single core mode.

    There's really little reason to choose the dual core option, unless you're hell bent on the higher number only for the sake of ePeen.

    Sandybridge will introduce substantially higher clock speeds over their predecessors. The 2.93ghz quad core will instead be around 3.4ghz quad core or so. Higher clock speed of course isn't the only improvement with sandybridge though.
     
  8. zulkiflim macrumors regular

    zulkiflim

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Location:
    Singapore
    #8
    Heya

    well first off,i think in this age we will need to talk more about real world usage verses cores and ghz...

    It is how well a hardware is utilised.

    That said,i believe that AMD new just mass released chip Llano is amazing.

    It is able to handle the workload seamlessly with lesser power.

    AMD purchase of the graphics giants is a game changer.

    Check out the link...
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-llano-demo-cebit-2011-sandy-bridge,2883.html
     
  9. lvlarkkoenen macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Location:
    Utrecht, NL
    #9
    Have you seen this?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdPi4GPEI74
    That said, this is kinda offtopic. Although it is an illustration that raw CPU horsepower isn't everything that matters.
    If you're doing things that require decent graphics power, go for either a Llano or a seperate GPU (or perhaps both?).
    To translate that to the OP's point:
    If you're doing things that can use multiple cores, go for 2.8 GHz, if you require high clock speed, 3.6 dual core might be better. As said before, the SB turboboost will probably make the difference smaller.
     
  10. cirus macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    #10
    Nice but the imac will have a dedicated graphics card (lano may be better but will not be able to drive a 2560 x 1600 display very well). 16 fps average at 1024 x 768 sucks. Intel seriously needs to fix its drivers.
     

Share This Page