Can Dual Core can work more fast than 2 Processor

If it posible I think it shold be
Who is Participating?

[Product update] Infrastructure Analysis Tool is now available with Business Accounts.Learn More

I wear a lot of hats...

"The solutions and answers provided on Experts Exchange have been extremely helpful to me over the last few years. I wear a lot of hats - Developer, Database Administrator, Help Desk, etc., so I know a lot of things but not a lot about one thing. Experts Exchange gives me answers from people who do know a lot about one thing, in a easy to use platform." -Todd S.

Not many programs are now available for a motherboard with two CPUs. Only one will be used.

Dual core divides up the work and definately is faster.
Gary CaseRetiredCommented:
".. Only one will be used .." ==> simply not true !!

XP works exactly the same with any dual "processor" system -- whether it's "hyperthreading" (2 apparent processors), dual core (2 actual processor cores), or dual CPU's (2 actual CPUs).

Dual core is absolutely NOT "definately ... faster".   It MAY be faster, depending on the specific CPU's you're comparing.

If you compare a dual-core CPU vs two CPU's at the same clock frequency, then the primary difference is most likely the size of their L2 caches.   If the dual-CPU system uses CPU's with larger caches, it will outperform the dual core;  if the opposite is true, then the dual-core will likely "win."   But these results are very much dependent on the specific benchmarks -- and, in fact, a dual-CPU system has a much better "worst case" performance than the dual-core (since it has two independent memory interfaces).

Another thing to consider is that the CPU's that Intel and AMD target for multi-CPU machines (Xeon's and Opteron's) are designed for multiple CPUs, and can work with far more than just 2 CPU's in the system.   So if the absolute max CPU power is a design goal, you can build a system with 4, 8, 16, etc.  CPU's.   These would, of course, blow away a dual core CPU :-)

But back to your question:  The simple answer is "it depends" ==> and in real life there will be very little difference between the two.

Experts Exchange Solution brought to you by

Your issues matter to us.

Facing a tech roadblock? Get the help and guidance you need from experienced professionals who care. Ask your question anytime, anywhere, with no hassle.

Start your 7-day free trial
Understanding Dual Processors, Hyper-Threading Technology, and Multi Core Systems

Cloud as a Security Delivery Platform for MSSPs

Every Managed Security Service Provider (MSSP) needs a platform to deliver effective and efficient security-as-a-service to their customers. Scale, elasticity and profitability are a few of the many features that a Cloud platform offers. View our on-demand webinar to learn more!

Gary CaseRetiredCommented:
... by the way, with a dual-CPU system there's no reason you can't use dual-core processors for each of those chips ==> giving you a 4-core system !!

In fact, the Cray XT-3 supercomputer is built as an array of microprocessors ==> in it's biggest configuration it uses 30,508 dual-core Opterons !!  (of course it's a bit out of the range of most of our budgets !!)
Here's an article that shows the possible price advantage of multiple processors, but also shows the performance advantage of Opteron dual cores in applications of video and audio compression:
Gary CaseRetiredCommented:
The Opteron dual-core's do very nicely, largely due to their dual 1MB L2 on-die cache.   For processes that have high cache hit rates (with a 1MB cache that will be a lot of them), the faster access of the on-die cache is a slight advantage for the dual-core.   However, the potential "worst case" (very low cache hit rates) is much worse for the dual-core CPU than for a dual processor system.  You can see this by looking at the memory bandwidth result in the link Callandor provided above (on page 12).   This is the one place where there's a MAJOR difference between the two, while in all the other benchmarks the differences are very minor, no matter which setup "wins".   In case the impact of this difference isn't clear, just remember that the more memory you have in your system, the more important the memory bandwidth is to keeping ALL of your processes active.   When you switch context (i.e. switch between active processes), the initial cache hits are very low and the cache will fill at the memory bandwidth rate.   So if you plan on keeping a lot of windows open, the results will very clearly favor a dual processor setup over a dual core setup.

I have to agree with Tom's hardware's conclusion:  "Right now, going for a dual processor machine using single cores will deliver the best bang for the buck."

==>  and a dual processor machine can always be upgraded to two dual-cores !!  (or you could just build it that way to start)


I read your comment and I like your comment.

If I could afford it I would get a motherboard with two dual core CPUs . It sound like a fantastic configuration!

Gary CaseRetiredCommented:
Yes, it would blow away most systems.   If, however, you're a gamer (I'm not) there's a "flaw" in the system -- I'm not aware of any dual processor motherboards that support SLI.   So you can't have BOTH a 4-core system AND linked GPU's.   ... ahhh, the compromises we must endure :-)
Gary CaseRetiredCommented:
One of these:
Two of these:
One of these:

... plus a bit of memory, a couple of Raptors, optical drives, etc.

... and you have an AMAZING system for less than I paid for my first 26MB (Yes, M-Byte) hard disk (in 1980 a 26MB 14" Seagate hard disk cost $4500).

Heck, I started with computers when the first apple came out that used a tape recorder for the programs. When I got my first pair of 5-1/2 cd drives I was in computer heaven.

When I bought my PC, I specified a full case. It proved fantastic, since I can up grade easily. I have 4 HDs and a dual monitor. The dual monitors are wonderful to open in one monitor for an e-book on a program and the program in the second monitor.


Gary CaseRetiredCommented:
Yes, I've been doing this a L..O..N..G time as well ==> working with computers since I was 15 (and when I was 15 that was very unusual -- I was a college freshman); and built an Altair in 1975 (that also cost more than the system above by the time I had it reasonably configured).   My "main" PC has 5 hard drives (1.3TB), dual monitors, 2 TV tuners, etc.   My video server PC has 6 TV tuners, 3.5TB of storage, and a few other goodies.   I also have about 9 other PC's "laying around" :-)
Gary CaseRetiredCommented:
teera  --  we're digressing a good bit here.   Have we answered your question??
They already exist as above, also for Intel. Expensive but quite capable.
It's more than this solution.Get answers and train to solve all your tech problems - anytime, anywhere.Try it for free Edge Out The Competitionfor your dream job with proven skills and certifications.Get started today Stand Outas the employee with proven skills.Start learning today for free Move Your Career Forwardwith certification training in the latest technologies.Start your trial today

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.