How closely does a dual-core processor compare to dual processors?

Kaido

Elite Member & Kitchen Overlord
Feb 14, 2004
49,292
5,838
136
Is it safe to say a 2ghz dual-core processor is roughly equivalent to two 2ghz processors on the same board running in dual-processor mode? What's the difference? Ballpark is fine :)
 

Markbnj

Elite Member <br>Moderator Emeritus
Moderator
Sep 16, 2005
15,682
14
81
www.markbetz.net
Easier to make boards for, that's for sure. Performance should be better due to on-die communication between processors. Definitely cost-effective on a per-cpu basis, as we have seen.

Hard to find a negative.
 

Kaido

Elite Member & Kitchen Overlord
Feb 14, 2004
49,292
5,838
136
Originally posted by: cessation
http://www.pugetsystems.com/articles.php?id=23

google 4 teh win!

Conclusion
As you can see, the move to dual-core is definitely a win for consumers. Since they are more affordable than dual processor systems, but offer the same or better performance, they are becoming the standard for modern computer systems.

;)

Wow, great article, thanks for the link! Dual-core wins by a little in my most of tests (in ALL of the AMD tests, actually). Nice! :D
 

Rotax

Senior member
Oct 10, 1999
529
0
76
no addaded fans/heatsinks sockets (board prices), the board doesn't get *bogged down* (as everything is done on the processor itself) etc etc . .
less heat, less power consumption, less noise, lighter (yes, a concern to lanners!) . .

haven't read the article yet, but...probably already says all this =\
 

Kaido

Elite Member & Kitchen Overlord
Feb 14, 2004
49,292
5,838
136
Opty 165 @ 2.8ghz = 5200+ X2 = dual 5.2ghz Pentium processors

Muhahahha! :D
 

zephyrprime

Diamond Member
Feb 18, 2001
7,512
2
81
Because of lower latency on die communication, dual core is faster than dual cpu so long as everything else is the same.
 

dguy6789

Diamond Member
Dec 9, 2002
8,558
3
76
Originally posted by: zephyrprime
Because of lower latency on die communication, dual core is faster than dual cpu so long as everything else is the same.

This only refers to AMD cpus.

The Pentium D based cpus cannot communicate core to core on die. They have to do it accross the mainboard just like Xeons do. Only K8 processors can have ondie core to core communication.
 

Crescent13

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
4,793
1
0
Dual Core FTW! My dream system is 8 Opty 890's (2.8GHz Dual core, in testing now), on a Tyan K8WE + M4881, with 4 Quadro FX 5500's, 128GB Ram, 8 M-Systems 323 GB SSD SCSI drives, and all liquid cooled. ahhhhhhh :D. I'd love to see how that would do my stuff in softimage XSI, because my computer sucks at workstation apps. (Opty 144 @ 2.8GHz, 7800GT @ 7800GTX speeds).
 

arcenite

Lifer
Dec 9, 2001
10,660
7
81
Originally posted by: Crescent13
Dual Core FTW! My dream system is 8 Opty 890's (2.8GHz Dual core, in testing now), on a Tyan K8WE + M4881, with 4 Quadro FX 5500's, 128GB Ram, 8 M-Systems 323 GB SSD SCSI drives, and all liquid cooled. ahhhhhhh :D. I'd love to see how that would do my stuff in softimage XSI, because my computer sucks at workstation apps. (Opty 144 @ 2.8GHz, 7800GT @ 7800GTX speeds).

^^
 

Fox5

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
5,957
7
81
Originally posted by: dguy6789
Originally posted by: zephyrprime
Because of lower latency on die communication, dual core is faster than dual cpu so long as everything else is the same.

This only refers to AMD cpus.

The Pentium D based cpus cannot communicate core to core on die. They have to do it accross the mainboard just like Xeons do. Only K8 processors can have ondie core to core communication.

Core Duo and Conroe have an even superior on die communication by using the cache to transfer data. Way faster than the hypertransport controller, though it does come at a small hit to single core performance.
 

dguy6789

Diamond Member
Dec 9, 2002
8,558
3
76
Originally posted by: Fox5
Originally posted by: dguy6789
Originally posted by: zephyrprime
Because of lower latency on die communication, dual core is faster than dual cpu so long as everything else is the same.

This only refers to AMD cpus.

The Pentium D based cpus cannot communicate core to core on die. They have to do it accross the mainboard just like Xeons do. Only K8 processors can have ondie core to core communication.

Core Duo and Conroe have an even superior on die communication by using the cache to transfer data. Way faster than the hypertransport controller, though it does come at a small hit to single core performance.


Impressive.
 

Goi

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
6,766
7
91
The only downsides are in that dual processor CPUs can afford to have more cache for teh same die size compared to dualcore CPUs, which have to fit 2 cores, hence taking away some space that could be used for extra L2 cache. Of course, this only helps for applications with a larger working set or have a higher L2 cache miss. Another potential advantage of dual processor systems is that since the cores are distributed, thermal/power density can be less than dual core systems.
 

Fullmetal Chocobo

Moderator<br>Distributed Computing
Moderator
May 13, 2003
13,704
7
81
Originally posted by: Crescent13
Dual Core FTW! My dream system is 8 Opty 890's (2.8GHz Dual core, in testing now), on a Tyan K8WE + M4881, with 4 Quadro FX 5500's, 128GB Ram, 8 M-Systems 323 GB SSD SCSI drives, and all liquid cooled. ahhhhhhh :D. I'd love to see how that would do my stuff in softimage XSI, because my computer sucks at workstation apps. (Opty 144 @ 2.8GHz, 7800GT @ 7800GTX speeds).

My dual Xeon is starting to show it's age... Thinking about migrating to Conroe & a PCIe RAID controller... $2k for the conversion though. :(