Saved Bookmarks
| 1. |
Solve : system speed? |
|
Answer» What do you think would be faster? but wouldnt a 2ghz dual core have a higher fsb then that? Like 800 or 1066?Irrelevant. That's not the question. some old slot A motherboards had two CPU slots. it was labelled "for testing only" but you could install a second CPU in it. You needed NT to use multiple processors back then, though.Were discussing two entirely seperate things here... Processer speed/cycles... And FSB speeds. The CPU being dual core will obviously do things faster... But it will be limited by the bus speeds so it's hard to say without bench-testing both machines.I suppose in reality, the two systems you are comparing, like patio was saying, there is a lot more to figure in, than what was in my two pretend computers ie. ram/cpu ratio, fsb speed, single core vs multi-core, and of COURSE what Aegis was TALKING about, whether your apps are written to take advantage of a multi-core processor......like hyper threading, apps must be written to take advantage of it ..more over, what the system is generally being used for.... A gamers system is obviously going to need more computing power than some secretary's OEM desktop. but in my pretend example, I guess the dual core wins! Maybe I should have made the argument more interesting and made the two puters like this: 200 MHz FSB, single core, 2 GHz processor VS 100 MHz FSB, dual core, 2 GHz processor I doubt there are many multi-core systems with an fsb of 100 MHz, although I have heard of them... |
|