Re: Dual Core vs Dual CPU
- From: mosey
- Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 05:09:11 -0700
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 22:22:29 -0400, daytripper
<day_trippr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 01:51:32 GMT, Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOSPAM@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Mark A wrote:
A dual CPU machine is always faster than a dual core.This may not necessarily remain true. In a dual core machine, there can
be common cache memory connected to both CPUs that can be accessed FAR
faster than if there were two separate CPUs on two separate chips, and
the connections between them had to be over a bus with relatively
limited speeds and bandwidth. Dual core technology is evolving quickly,
and we will see quad-core systems within less than a year. They may
eclipse systems with multiple conventional CPUs.
Shared caches aren't 100% goodness. Thrashing, in particular, will be a more
frequent occurrence in a dual core/shared nth level cache configuration than
with two separate processors with their own nth level caches...
/daytripper
I kinda like two networked single core machines. If one crashes, it
doesn't make as big a mess.
Most everyone these days has a new machine and an old one.
.
- References:
- Dual Core vs Dual CPU
- From: art
- Re: Dual Core vs Dual CPU
- From: Mark A
- Re: Dual Core vs Dual CPU
- From: Barry Watzman
- Re: Dual Core vs Dual CPU
- From: daytripper
- Dual Core vs Dual CPU
- Prev by Date: Re: HD cooling trick
- Next by Date: Re: Disappearing wireless conector on M2N32 590
- Previous by thread: Re: Dual Core vs Dual CPU
- Next by thread: Disappearing wireless conector on M2N32 590
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
