AMD dual core processor, E450, 1.65 GHz, 512 KB by 2L2 cache (copied from
the OfficeMax website.) In 2005, I bought a 2.2 GHz computer. Shouldn’t the
speeds be much higher or did we reach that technology plateau? Mine is a single
core. Does dual core really matter or is it a gimmick?
In this excerpt from
Answercast #19, I look at the way newer programs and machines access that
core processor and why more is better.
So the 1.65 GHz is kinda low. My suspicion is that that particular machine is probably a laptop and it’s trying to save power. Higher speeds require more power. But that’s definitely at the low end of the spectrum that I would probably want to be using today.
Processor speeds? I won’t say that they’ve completely plateaued; but they certainly have started to level off. The highest speed that I’m aware of right now (without over-clocking) is something like 3.6 GHz. It’s been in that 3 GHz range for quite some time.
What many manufacturers are doing now is, instead of continually trying to ratchet the processor speed, they are throwing more processors on to the chip. A single core processor is actually rare these days. I think most of the processors you’ll find are at least dual core. I was poking around looking at a desktop machine for gaming the other day and there are already six core processors that are commercially available for consumer use.
Yes, cores are not a gimmick, absolutely not.
Basically, they are putting multiple processors in machines (or in a single chip on the machine) that can now make a significant difference in the way that the software runs. The computer is finally able to do more than one thing at a time.
Windows, and operating systems like it, are designed to take a single-core processor and make it look like it’s doing more than one thing at once, simply by switching between lots of different things very, very quickly. To you and I, it looks like multiple things are happening simultaneously.
In reality, under the hood, there’s exactly one thing happening at a time. It’s just a lot of different things happening one after the other.
When you add a core, when you add more than one core, now all of a sudden, the computer can literally be doing two different things or more at the same time.
Where this is most valuable (and one of the reason that I actually recommend that you go for no less than two cores) is if you have a piece of software that is not written to take advantage of multiple processors or multiple cores. Having a second core can make your computer more usable if that software gets into a state where it’s not relinquishing the processor as often as it should.
What that means is you can have a program hang completely and still have your computer be usable.
Double that core!
So, in short, cores are not a gimmick. More is definitely better these days.
Windows and modern operating systems are taking advantage of the fact that there are potentially multiple cores available.
I have an article, “Should I get a dual core or quad core processor?“
I tend to run a quad core these days on my desktop. I believe my laptop here is a dual core. As I said, don’t go for anything less than a dual on a machine that you are purchasing new. And take it from there.