Dual-core processors: twice as good?

Discussion in 'Gaming and Software' started by _Artemis_, Aug 11, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I'm currently trying to buy a new laptop, and I need one with at least 1.8 GHz of processing power. I've got my eye on the Sony Vaio VGN-TZ21WN/B, but it's "only" got a 1.06 dual core processor. My question is this: does a 1.06 dual core (by some magic) give you an effective processing output of more than 1.06 GHz, and if so, how much more?

    (If a dual core 1.06GHz is going to be too slow, does anyone know of a laptop under 1.6kg that does have at least 1.8 GHz of processing power?)

    Any help greatly appreciated.
  2. There is a site that deals with relative processor speeds....

    Here is one site

    and there are others.

    But of course, you might buy a fast processor and then throttle it by buying insufficient RAM.

  3. If you have, say, a quad core processor at 2 ghz per core it doesnt mean that it will process data 4 times faster than a single 2 ghz processor. Processing and bandwidth dont really work like that for a number of reasons - not least the quicker you squirt ones and zeros into a processor the higher the error rates and also the higher the heat produced, all of which have a negative effect on processor output.

    Also, most applications are not written to effectively use multiple processors. With core 2 due/X2/core 2 quad becoming the norm, application writers will start to make their software more efficient at using the available processor power, but it'll take time. The most benefit is in the gaming market with multiple cores and SLI graphics cards the PC owner can experience gaming at higher qualities than ever before.

    If you dont game, its almost impossible to buy a shite PC or laptop these days. If all you want is internet, the odd DVD and office automation even the cheapest will serve your purpose. Now more than ever you need to know what you want when you buy.
  4. Cheers for the responses guys, much appreciated. Sounds like I need to bite the bullet and shell out for something that has the required amount of processing power up front.
  5. 1.8GHz? what game are you trying to play?

    Oh, wait a minute, it's Artemis. It's for porn isn't it? :p
  6. Agree with Litotes

    Unless you are some super freak that plays games that no one else has heard of yet, it is almost impossible to buy a "sub standard processor" nowadays, it's all about RAM
  7. Agreed RAM important as well (I need a gigabyte), but most of the laptop models I've considered and rejected have been fine for RAM and hard-drive capacity, but just haven't had enough processing power (1.2-1.6GHz seems to be standard). There's a particular type of software I need to run (yes Bells, it's porn) which has got to have 1.8GHz at a minimum (and 2.4GHz ideally). After spending more time than is healthy reading reviews by geeks and looking at specs, I'm going to wait a couple of weeks until they're released in the UK and go for the mid-spec machine in the Sony Vaio Z series: a whopping 2.4 Dual Core processor, 4 GB of RAM and a 250 GB hard drive. I'm not convinced it's worth paying another £100 to get an extra 0.1GHz of processing power that the top of the range Z series gives.

    Plus it has a fingerprint recognition device so I can pretend I'm in Spooks every time I need to work.