3.6ghz Dual Core vs. 2.8ghz Quad Core

[mackage]

Did anyone ever notice that the geekbench scores comparing these two processors in the 2010 iMacs are VERY close?

I am still a huge fan of a high clock speed because alot of programs and applications don't take full advantage of all the cores in a quad core with a slower clock speed. Clock speed is still a good thing. The 3.6ghz is a dual core with hyperthreading so it has 2 virtual cores and 2 actual cores with 4 mb of cache, while the 2.8ghz is a true quad core with hyperthreading so it has 4 virtual cores and 4 actual cores with 8 mb of cache.

The geekbench results score them very close. If I had to choose....it would be the 3.6ghz because I think the higher clock speed will give you more of an advantage on a daily basis.

It seems that most of the new Sandy Bridge processors that will be in the new iMacs won't have very high clock speeds, except for the very high end upgrade.

 

[iMikeT]

Ok. Are we supposed to be impressed at some point?

 

[mackage]

Ok. Are we supposed to be impressed at some point?

This is a forum where people discuss facts about the iMac.

Are we suppose to be surprised that you posted again with nothing factual or meaningful to add? It seems to be your M.O..

 

[flopticalcube]

I believe turboboost is improved in sandy bridge so single threaded apps will be able to run fast without shutting down all cores. Or something like that.

 

[iMikeT]

This is a forum where people discuss facts about the iMac.

Are we suppose to be surprised that you posted again with nothing factual or meaningful to add? It seems to be your M.O..

srsly braa? ditz all boutz cluck spds! cluk-a-dodle-doo!

 

[spacepower7]

The 2010 2.8 is an i5 that doesn't have virtual cores? The 2009 i7 2.8 does have virtual cores.

I think I'm right?

 

[TMRaven]

The max clock speed of the quad core is 3.6ghz while in single core mode, while the max clock sped of the dual core was only either 3.8 or 3.9ghz while in single core mode.

There's really little reason to choose the dual core option, unless you're hell bent on the higher number only for the sake of ePeen.

Sandybridge will introduce substantially higher clock speeds over their predecessors. The 2.93ghz quad core will instead be around 3.4ghz quad core or so. Higher clock speed of course isn't the only improvement with sandybridge though.

 

[zulkiflim]

Heya

well first off,i think in this age we will need to talk more about real world usage verses cores and ghz...

It is how well a hardware is utilised.

That said,i believe that AMD new just mass released chip Llano is amazing.

It is able to handle the workload seamlessly with lesser power.

AMD purchase of the graphics giants is a game changer.

Check out the link...
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-llano-demo-cebit-2011-sandy-bridge,2883.html

 

[lvlarkkoenen]

Heya

well first off,i think in this age we will need to talk more about real world usage verses cores and ghz...

It is how well a hardware is utilised.

That said,i believe that AMD new just mass released chip Llano is amazing.

It is able to handle the workload seamlessly with lesser power.

AMD purchase of the graphics giants is a game changer.

Check out the link...
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-llano-demo-cebit-2011-sandy-bridge,2883.html

Have you seen this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdPi4GPEI74
That said, this is kinda offtopic. Although it is an illustration that raw CPU horsepower isn't everything that matters.
If you're doing things that require decent graphics power, go for either a Llano or a seperate GPU (or perhaps both?).
To translate that to the OP's point:
If you're doing things that can use multiple cores, go for 2.8 GHz, if you require high clock speed, 3.6 dual core might be better. As said before, the SB turboboost will probably make the difference smaller.

 

[cirus]

Heya

well first off,i think in this age we will need to talk more about real world usage verses cores and ghz...

It is how well a hardware is utilised.

That said,i believe that AMD new just mass released chip Llano is amazing.

It is able to handle the workload seamlessly with lesser power.

AMD purchase of the graphics giants is a game changer.

Check out the link...
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-llano-demo-cebit-2011-sandy-bridge,2883.html

Nice but the imac will have a dedicated graphics card (lano may be better but will not be able to drive a 2560 x 1600 display very well). 16 fps average at 1024 x 768 sucks. Intel seriously needs to fix its drivers.