Intel Core processors' frequency

[oviradoi]

I want to finally buy a new PC, and I want to build it from scratch on a low budget.

I would like to get an Intel Core processor for ~100 $

I have seen offers, and I have noticed that Intel Core Duo processors are in the range of 1.6, 1.8 GHz, and only more expensive ones are around 2.8 GHz.

But there are other Intel processors (Pentium 820) that are less pricy and are running at 3 GHz.

I want to ask if those are better than Intel Core Duo processors. I know that Core Duo are one of the latest processors to come out, and I want to know what the difference is.

I know that the Intel Core Duo processors are 64 bit and the other ones are 32 bit, but I frankly don't know the difference. Does the frequency for Core Duo processors multiply by 2 (1.6*2 = 3.2 GHz)??

For example, if I have a Core Duo processor at 1.6 GHz and I want to run a game that requires a 2 GHz processor, will I be able to run it? And I also want to know if the overall speed of the computer will be influenced by the processor (will apps run faster with an Intel Core Duo @ 1.6 GHz than with an Intel Pentium 820 @ 3 GHz), beacause I want to be able to run virtual machines fast on my new PC (VMWare, VirtualBox). And I also want to know wich is best for Windows Vista.

Please enlighten me

[cyprod]

Frequency of a processor is only one factor to consider in the speed a processor.

To answer your question about can you just multiply processor speed by 2 because of two cores, no, you can't. Each core is an independant processing unit and can only move data through it at it's given frequency. If a program is written correctly so it can break itself in to two threads which can execute simultaniously, then you do get an increase in speed with multiple cores. But you mentioned games specifically, and very few of these are multi-threaded in a sense which would greatly benifity from multi-processing.

That being said, does the 3GHz chip make sense to use....maybe. The 3GHz chip no doubt has a faster clock, but it's also built on the netburst architecture. The netburst architecture uses a very deep pipeline (execution of each instruction is broken up into many steps) which means each step through the pipeline takes less time, so you can run the clock speed faster. This is fine and dandy, until you run into pipeline stalls. If an instruction relys on a previous instruction, no new instructions can execute until the one waiting gets it's needed result. In a very deep pipeline, this can mean upto 20+ clock cycles are wasted just waiting for a result and program execution isn't progressing during this time. If this happens often enough, it can effectively cut your effective frequency by a factor of 10. Now a factor of 10 would be extreme, but you get the point. (Folks, please don't point out out of order execution, I'm trying to keep this simple)

Core architecture uses a more shallow pipeline, each step in the pipeline takes longer to execute, which means you can't run the clock speed as fast, but the stalls don't stop the processor for as long. Also throw in improved memory IO and such, and stalls don't happen as often.

So with that, the short answer to is the 3Ghz chip faster than the 1.6GHz chip, it depends. I'd tend to go for the 1.6GHz core 2 just cuz it's newer, uses less power, is more easily upgraded, yodda yodda yodda.

[oviradoi]

How about 32 bit vs 64 bit.

What's the difference that does to games, apps and especially Windows Vista

[cyprod]

sorry, forgot about that portion, 32bit vs 64bit basically how much RAM you can have. 32bit processors are limited to 32bit operating systems which top out at 4 gigs of RAM, though I've never seen anybody on a 32 bit OS have more than 3.5 gigs of uesable RAM. 64 bit processors have a theoretical max RAM of I think 16384 petabytes of RAM (17179869184 gigs of RAM) though in practical senses, my current system has 4 gigs, expandable up to 8 gigs (limited by the mother board) and I can actually use that entire amount. I don't know of any consumer motherboards that address more than 8 gigs of RAM, so that will probably be your limit.

Now in terms of performance, RAM actually has more to do with speed of your system than the processor since if you don't have enough RAM, your system will always have to swap with your hard drive and to put things into perspective with memory access, pulling from a register takes one clock cycle. Pulling from L1 cache is 2 or 3, L2 cache is around 10 clock cycles. Pulling from RAM is around 100 clock cycles. Pulling from the hard drive takes an average of 6 ms. Now, a 1.6GHz chip has 1.6 billion clock cycles per second, devide by 1000, you get 1.6 million clock cycles per ms, needless to say, you don't want to swap from the hard drive, so having enough RAM is EXTREMELY important to your system performance. So if you have a lot of memory intensive apps (which VMs are included in) you want lots of RAM, and 64 bit becomes attractive. But remember that to use 8 gigs of RAM requires 2 gig DIMMS, and those are kind of pricy.

Lastly, since you did mention VMs, VMs benifit GREATLY from multiple cores as those can be set to run on one core while your host OS runs on the other, so from that stand point, dual core would be benificial.

[weEvil]

Core 2s also have lots of cache. Even if the original Pentium Ds have a faster core clock. Cache plays a huge role in performance.

That and the new ones run cooler and overclock alot. So even if you buy one that is 1.6 GHz if you have the proper cooling and motherboard you can overclock them well beyond what is advertised on the box.

[GrofLuigi]

sorry, forgot about that portion, 32bit vs 64bit basically how much RAM you can have.

Although true, that is by far not the most significant difference. Trying to keep it simple, let's say 64bit is better, but today's programs cannot fully make use of it. But currently it does not matter, because:

1. 64bit processors run 32bit code well (that means games will work and you can choose which Vista to install); and

2. Most (if not all) new processors are 64bit.

So, oviradoi, I'd go with 64bit also if money allows.

GL

[dubsdj]

I think frequency in processors does not really matter as much as it did before. AMD's always had lower frequencies but in some cases were faster. I think its the architecture of the chip and how its utilized with todays software which determines the speed.

[amit_talkin]

go for intel c2d this time...cheap and superb performance...highly overclockable...over 100%. trust me..i own E6300 myself. if u want cheap..go for E4300. intel going to cutoff prices more soon.

[Thunderbolt 2864]

Windows Server 2003 32 bit can go over 4GB, I have 4GB installed on my computer and Windows Server 2003 can see over 4GB, though I don't understand that other 32 bit operating systems are limited to 3GB if 2003 can surpass this limit.

[ripken204]

ya that is strange, but according to wiki, server 2003 is limited to 4gb of ram..

[Camarade_Tux]

They use PAE: memory addresses are stored on 64-bit instead of 32-bit, just like on 64bits systems.

Btw, there's a drawback of using PAE/64-bit: memory addresses use more space, i.e. more memory so in the end, you lose some memory. Theorically and experimentally, you lose around 30%.

And windows is very bad on this point: as I have 2GB ram, pagefile is 3GB by default so I get 5GB of memory and therefore, windows switchs to PAE (there's another kernel for that :ntkrnlpa(mp).exe). Then I reduce swap so I go under 3GB but PAE is still enabled and I lose the 30%.

But, you can still specify another kernel to use instead of ntkrnlpa(mp).exe; ntkrnlos.exe or ntkrnlmp.exe for instance.

Conclusion: 3GB ram on 32bits systems is equivalent to 4GB on 64-bits/PAE systems.

[jcarle]

The processor frequencies are low because no one's kicked the hamsters hard enough yet.

[ripken204]

The processor frequencies are low because no one's kicked the hamsters hard enough yet.

lol, i think that the hampster in my dad's comp is about to die

we saw the same exact comp as his at a used comp store for $39, he payed over $2000 for it about 8 years ago.

what's funny is that the 2x128mb ram upgrade we did too it costs more than the comp..

Edited July 2, 2007 by ripken204