Koodauw said:each core runs at 2.0 ghz, however 2.0 ghz X 2 cores does not mean you have a 4.0 ghz machine.
powerbook911 said:It's actually better. Right? I mean, it's just not a comparison.
However, isn't have 2 x 2.0GHZ cores better than 1 x 4GHZ core?
powerbook911 said:It's actually better. Right? I mean, it's just not a comparison.
However, isn't have 2 x 2.0GHZ cores better than 1 x 4GHZ core?
laidbackliam said:there are probably arguments each way on that debate
Timepass said:That being said a 4ghz> 2 CPUs 2ghz> 1 cpu with 2 cores at 2 ghz. Also rememeber this is based on the CPUs them selves being at the same level of effincey for each clock cycle.
What? Did you even read the Wiki article you linked to? Hyperthreading is not about emulating two cores at half the internal clock frequency, it's about sharing the execution unit resources between two threads.balamw said:How about 1 4 GHz CPU emulating two 2.0 GHz cores? (i.e. Hyperthreading, which is the default state of most recent P4 CPUs.).![]()