3.06GHz dual-core vs 2.66GHz (or 2.8GHz) quad-core

For all tech/computer related or even internet related discussions not covered in other sections. Also iPad, iPhone, iPod and multimedia discussions.

Moderators: profman, Josh, Don_HH2K

3.06GHz dual-core vs 2.66GHz (or 2.8GHz) quad-core

Postby Antony » Tue 20 Oct, 2009 7:59 pm

Well, I guess I am a bit behind the processor speed thing now. My question is simple, which one is faster? And which one is better?
3.06 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor with 3MB shared L2 cache
vs
2.66 GHz Intel Core i5 quad-core processor with 8MB shared L3 cache
vs
2.8 GHz Intel Core i7 quad-core processor with 8MB shared L3 cache

Or in plain words, is quad-core faster even if the clock speed is a bit slower?

Let's say all other specs are the same.

(Okay, I guess you know [sdt=16075]what[/sdt] I am talking about)
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.3) Gecko/20090824 Firefox/3.5.3
User avatar
Antony
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 14508
Joined: Tue 18 Jun, 2002 11:36 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby Mandrake » Wed 21 Oct, 2009 1:53 am

The Core 2 Duo processor is based on the somewhat-aging Core micro-architecture. The performance is still decent, but it has been superseded to some degree.

The Core i5 and i7 are based on the much newer Nehalem micro-architecture. These are by far the fastest available CPUs for high end computers available today.

I'll call on some help from AnandTech to show the relative performance of the CPUs you've listed here. The 2.66Ghz Core i5 is the Core i5 750. The 2.8GHz Core i7 is the Core i7 860. There is no 3.06GHz Core 2 Duo in these benchmarks, but the Core 2 Duo E8600 (3.33Ghz dual core) is included.

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

The Core 2 Duo keeps up well in games, but in media applications like video encoding or Photoshop they don't stand a chance. Given that the E8600 is faster than the dual core you were considering, I don't think the choice is a hard one. The Nehalem-based quad core CPUs offer much better performance.

That leads us to the final point. There is a slight clockspeed difference between the i5 and i7, but aside from that most of the specifications are exactly the same with one important exception. The Core i7 CPUs support Intel's HyperThreading (SMT) technology while the Core i5 CPUs do not. HyperThreading allows each core to run two threads, so you can have eight threads run simultaneously on an i7, while you are limited to four on an i5. This can improve performance by a noticeable margin in some workloads, but in others there's really no difference at all. Intel's website has a good article on HyperThreading.

If it was my decision with the 27" iMac, I'd grab the 2.66GHz Core i5. The i7 doesn't offer enough to justify the extra cost IMO. I'd rather put that towards 8GB ram instead of 4GB. :)
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.3) Gecko/20090824 Firefox/3.5.3 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)
Core i7 920 | ASUS P6T Deluxe v2 | 3TB+ HDD | 12GB Corsair DDR3 | Radeon 4890 Xfire | X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty | Logitech Z-5500 Speakers | Dell 3008WFP | Seven RC1
User avatar
Mandrake
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4193
Joined: Fri 13 Sep, 2002 6:35 am

Postby Antony » Wed 21 Oct, 2009 6:00 am

Thank you for the detailed information.

From the chart, I am a bit surprised to see that Core 2 Quad at 2.40GHz outperforms Core 2 Due at much faster @3.33GHz. I guess I can't just look at the clock speed itself.

I haven't made up my mind about if I shall replace this current iMac with another iMac yet, but I will keep this in mind.

Thanks again.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.3) Gecko/20090824 Firefox/3.5.3
User avatar
Antony
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 14508
Joined: Tue 18 Jun, 2002 11:36 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby PaulD » Wed 21 Oct, 2009 2:11 pm

"My question is simple, which one is faster? And which one is better?"
- Or not so simple: one has to define 'faster' and ' better'.

There is a difference in what is being measured, which depends upon the work that is expected of the system.

If one wants pure raw speed, with a one-thread task, then clock / instruction-execution speed is the criterion.
If one wants total job throughput and productivity, with multiple concurrent tasks and threads, then the product of processors times clock speed times degradation factor is the criterion.

Mandrake already has talked about this - clock speed, number of cores, HyperThreading.

Examples: BOINC (see Richard Mitnick's posts) suggests that pure speed is of the essence. In contrast, one who simultaneously is doing heavy encoding AND gaming would suffer severely with only one processor. But also see discussion below of I/O constraints.

(The 'degradation factor' is not quite a constant, but it accounts for the administrative overhead in the computer that is imposed by task dispatching and processor assignment that is required for multiple concurrent tasks. It also accounts for the delays due to the necessity to impose serialization on resources.)

Another consideration must be the I/O utilization. If the system is I/O bound (either from the need for data getting or putting because of the nature of the work, or because the memory working set is too large for the memory available, thus causing paging/swapping) then processor(s) speed is irrelevant beyond a certain point. The system will 'always' be waiting for data transfer. (Race cars and jalopies all wait at a red signal and cross-traffic at the same rate.) This is alleviated by additional devices and channels / buses.

A balanced system is one which has adequate available: processor cycles, memory, and I/O capacity. A balanced system, by definition, is one that runs out of all resources at about the same time. A constantly balanced system is an unattainable ideal, because the real-life work load is never constant.

The real question is: what does one want to do with the computer? Then obtain the resources to support that work. There is no one / best specification that is independent of job imposition. For example, a 'netbook' is adequate for emails and solitaire.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.0.14) Gecko/2009082707 Firefox/3.0.14
PaulD
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 902
Joined: Mon 14 Aug, 2006 5:52 pm

Postby Antony » Mon 26 Oct, 2009 5:18 am

Thank you Paul.

I think I will stick to my purchasing principle: getting the most powerful I can (and willing to) afford at the time, since I don't intend to upgrade the machine every now and then, except might add more RAM in the future.

The difference between 2.66GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i5 and 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 is A$290, while upgrading from 4GB to 8GB (4 x 2GB) is also A$ 290, (or 2 x 4GB for A$840).

I still haven't decided if I should get it now or later.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.3) Gecko/20090824 Firefox/3.5.3
User avatar
Antony
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 14508
Joined: Tue 18 Jun, 2002 11:36 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia


Return to General Computing and Tech

Who is online

Registered users: Google [Bot]