Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

What is the difference between Core 2 duo and just one core?

E

egyptianeyez

macrumors member
Original poster
Dec 30, 2007
34
0
I really dont know what core 2 duo and quad duo and all this crap. Can someone help me understand? :D Because I have the feeling Intel processors are better than AMD and AMD tend to have one core, which I really dont know what that means lol.
 
egyptianeyez said:
I really dont know what core 2 duo and quad duo and all this crap. Can someone help me understand? :D Because I have the feeling Intel processors are better than AMD and AMD tend to have one core, which I really dont know what that means lol.
Click to expand...

Core Duo and Core 2 Duo are simply marketing terms.

Core Duo = Dual Cores (32 BIT)
Core 2 Duo = Dual Cores (64 BIT)
Core 2 Quad = Quad Cores (64 BIT)

In every benchmark Intel has been completely dominating AMD.

AMD Offers their own variety of dual and quad core processors that are still great, just simply no where near the performance of intel's.

This logic applies to Macs and PCs despite macs not using amd.

Ironically this same comparison applies to ati and nvidia.

Nvidia has been spanking ati for the last year plus as well.
 
More cores just means more "processors within a processor" to help speed up tasks, given the right conditions.
 
Ohh, because ive had a hp desktop for about 2 years now, Intel quad core 3ghz which I have no idea means... Does that mean there are 12ghz? or just more like idk what I'm talking about lol
 
It basically it means the computer can do 2 things at once, think about a motorway if u have one lane it can only do one thing at a time (1 core) but if you have 2 lanes then it can do two things at once resulting in it being faster (2 cores) it just makes the computer go faster.
 
Pretty every manufacturer has two cores. Having multiple cores is like having multiprocessors, except the two cores can communicate with each other at full speed, instead of being slowed down by communicating over the logic board. In general, having multiple cores allows for more faster processing. This trend started because they were having difficulty with creating faster chips that didn't require lots of electricity or didn't put off enough heat to melt Greenland. The multiple core chips are much more energy effecient.

Also, it is Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Quad (the Core 2 indicated second generation of the Core technology, and it is 64-bit).

TEG
 
killmoms said:
More cores just means more "processors within a processor" to help speed up tasks, given the right conditions.
Click to expand...

If the software is written to be multi-threaded then you will notice a performance increase in the given application.

Or if you are multi-tasking the different apps can spread the load accross multiple cores.

One processor can have multiple cores.... Not multiple processors.
 
egyptianeyez said:
I really dont know what core 2 duo and quad duo and all this crap. Can someone help me understand? :D Because I have the feeling Intel processors are better than AMD and AMD tend to have one core, which I really dont know what that means lol.
Click to expand...

Intel Core Duo:
The Core brand refers to Intel's 32-bit mobile dual-core x86 CPUs that derived from the Pentium M branded processors.
The Core comprised two branches: the Duo (dual-core) and Solo (Duo with one disabled core, which replaced the Pentium M brand of single-core mobile processor).
The Core brand was launched on January 5, 2006 by the release of the 32-bit Yonah core CPU - Intel's first dual-core mobile (low-power) processor. Its dual-core closely resembled two interconnected Pentium M branded CPUs packaged as a single die (piece) silicon chip (IC). Hence, the 32-bit microarchitecture of Core branded CPUs


Intel Core 2 Duo:
The Core 2 brand refers to a range of Intel's consumer 64-bit dual-core and MCM quad-core CPUs with the x86-64 instruction set, and based on the Intel Core microarchitecture, which derived from the 32-bit dual-core Yonah laptop processor. (Note: The Yonah had two interconnected cores, similar to those branded Pentium M, but comprising a single silicon chip or die.) The 2x2 MCM dual-die quad-core[1] CPU had two separate dual-core dies (CPUs) - next to each other - in one quad-core MCM package. The Core 2 relegated the Pentium brand to a lower-end market, and reunified the laptop and desktop CPU lines divided into the Pentium 4, D, and M brands.
The Core 2 brand was introduced on July 27, 2006[3] comprising of the Solo (single-core), Duo (dual-core), Quad (quad-core), and Extreme (dual- or quad-core CPUs for enthusiasts) branches, during 2007.

The Core 2 branded CPUs include: "Conroe" and "Allendale" (dual-core for higher- and lower-end desktops), "Merom" (dual-core for laptops), "Kentsfield" (quad-core for desktops), and their variants named "Penryn" (dual-core for laptops), "Wolfdale" (dual-core for desktops) and "Yorkfield" (quad-core for desktops). (Note: For the server and workstation "Woodcrest", "Clovertown", and "Tigerton" CPUs see the Xeon brand[5].)
 
The thing is, my friend has a imac, but core 2 duo 2.0GHz i think or less... with the same RAM and stuff. But his computer is way faster, it bugs me to death.
 
brandonshough said:
One processor can have multiple cores.... Not multiple processors.
Click to expand...

We're providing a layman's explanation here. I'm aware of the difference between a processor and a core, but I'm trying to explain it to someone who doesn't. Honestly. :rolleyes:

egyptianeyez said:
The thing is, my friend has a imac, but core 2 duo 2.0GHz i think or less... with the same RAM and stuff. But his computer is way faster, it bugs me to death.
Click to expand...

Well, the "Core" micro-architecture (and the subsequent Core 2 version) brought a lot of other improvements. Basically, the clock speed ("GHz") of a chip doesn't really say a lot about its relative performance anymore. There are a lot of ways to get more performance per clock, and that's been the goal of chipmakers. The high-GHz chips tended to run very hot and were generally inefficient. These more efficient chips sought to reverse that trend (ramping clock speed way up for not much performance improvement and a lot more power consumption/heat output).
 
lol I dont need specifics, i just needed to know like which one is faster.. so 3ghz quad core or whatever is slower than my friend's computer with less ghz and cores or something. which is why i thought more cores makes it slower...
 
egyptianeyez said:
lol I dont need specifics, i just needed to know like which one is faster.. so 3ghz quad core or whatever is slower than my friend's computer with less ghz and cores or something. which is why i thought more cores makes it slower...
Click to expand...

There's no hard and fast rules, which is where it gets complicated. For instance, a new Core 2 microarchitecture-based Xeon, like the ones in the Mac Pros, run at 3.0 GHz. They have four cores. They'd be WAY faster than your friend's iMac. But they'd also be worlds faster than old quad-core Pentium 4 chips, because the internal design of the Pentium 4 was way less efficient at the same clock-speed.

Also, FWIW, I believe there were never true 4-core Pentium 4 chips (besides Pentium 4-derived Xeons). You might be talking about a Pentium D chip that had hyperthreading turned on, which was an Intel technology designed to make it "look" like there are four "logical" cores, but there are only 2 physical cores. Sped up some multi-threaded processes, sometimes, but it's not the same as having 4 discrete cores by any stretch of the imagination.

Yeah, chip design is pretty complicated and confusing stuff. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back