Go Back   Computer Forums > Welcome To Computer Forums .org > Social Lounge | Off Topic
Click Here to Login
Join Computer forums Today


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-20-2010, 05:16 PM   #1
Fully Optimized
 
Jesusfrk611's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: US
Posts: 2,193
Default Question about muticores

I started a class this semester in computer hardware. So far it's been good, but there's one thing my teacher keeps saying that is going against what I already know. That is that you add the speeds up on multicore processors to get the "actual speed". I believe if it's a dual core 2.4GHz processor, it runs at 2.4GHz, not 4.8GHz (As I have read on this forum many times, as well as researched). It sure doesn't make any sense how the speeds can actually be added when you really think about it as the cores work indepenantly. I really want to argue against his point, but he's a type of person that needs a good reason behind a belief, and I really don't know enough about it to say anything.

Help me prove him wrong...
__________________

Jesusfrk611 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2010, 05:21 PM   #2
Site Team
 
David Lindon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 15,233
Default Re: Question about muticores

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesusfrk611 View Post
I started a class this semester in computer hardware. So far it's been good, but there's one thing my teacher keeps saying that is going against what I already know. That is that you add the speeds up on multicore processors to get the "actual speed". I believe if it's a dual core 2.4GHz processor, it runs at 2.4GHz, not 4.8GHz (As I have read on this forum many times, as well as researched). It sure doesn't make any sense how the speeds can actually be added when you really think about it as the cores work indepenantly. I really want to argue against his point, but he's a type of person that needs a good reason behind a belief, and I really don't know enough about it to say anything.

Help me prove him wrong...
Well it doesn't run at 4.8 GHz, but I guess he is just saying as a means of comparison your could say that in theory a 2.4GHz core 2 quad is 'equivalent' to a 4.8 GHz core 2 duo
__________________

__________________
[url=http://www.LNXPS.NET]LNXPS.NET - The XPS Library]
David Lindon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2010, 05:22 PM   #3
Fully Optimized
 
~Darkseeker~'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Welwyn Garden City, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,494
Default Re: Question about muticores

well, when i used to run XP, my Dual-core Turion showed up on command prompt -> systeminfo as two seperate CPUs

so id say that the cores work independantly?
__________________
EVGA SLI Micro Z68 // Intel i5-2500k @ 4.4GHz // 8GB Corsair Vengeance 1866MHz // Overclocked ASUS GTX 660 Ti // Corsair Carbide SPEC-03 // Kingston Hyper-X 120GB // 2TB WD Green + 500GB WD Black
#JC4PM
~Darkseeker~ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2010, 08:41 PM   #4
Guru
 
JogaBonito1502's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: U.S.
Posts: 7,841
Default Re: Question about muticores

Cores work "independently" of each other. However, that is a gray area. The task is just divided over the cores if you want to be simple about it. Tell him to download CPU-z on a quad-core or a dual-core and tell him to read what it says. CPU-z doesn't lie.
JogaBonito1502 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2010, 09:38 PM   #5
Golden Master
 
sniperviper21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 5,438
Default Re: Question about muticores

Quote:
Originally Posted by JogaBonito1502 View Post
Cores work "independently" of each other. However, that is a gray area. The task is just divided over the cores if you want to be simple about it. Tell him to download CPU-z on a quad-core or a dual-core and tell him to read what it says. CPU-z doesn't lie.
lol


my prof in my class did the same thing to me.
told him if i brougt in my PC and showed him hes wrong if i could get bonus points. he said yes, so i brought in my 60lb brute PC and owned him haha..
__________________
You got to have a Fiddle in the band!
sniperviper21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2010, 12:35 AM   #6
Fully Optimized
 
Jesusfrk611's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: US
Posts: 2,193
Default Re: Question about muticores

Alright, thanks. I'll see if he understands. I just hate when people say that. Generally it's computer noobs, but I was surprised when I heard it from my computer professor...
Jesusfrk611 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2010, 06:20 AM   #7
Site Team
 
berry120's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: England, UK
Posts: 3,425
Default Re: Question about muticores

Ahh. This old one. Let's try and straighten it out once and for all (this is something I'd whack in the wiki if it existed )

First off, note that in the following example I'm assuming that the two processors I'm talking about are of the same type - i.e. assuming that we can take frequency as a comparative measure of speed across the two. For obvious reasons this isn't always the case!

Let's just get one thing out the way to start with. It is completely and utterly incorrect to say that (for example) a 1Ghz processor with 4 cores is the same as a 4Ghz single core processor. The two processors above would behave very differently; unfortunately a single threaded task can't just be automatically multi-threaded across a few cores. Anyone who tells you it can has been misinformed - there's been a lot of research into this area and no-one's turned up with any acceptable results. If you take a single threaded application and run it on a 1Ghz 4 core processor, it'll be pretty much the same as running the thing on a 1Ghz single core processor - it's not going to split itself up and run at anywhere near the same speed as it would on the 4Ghz machine.

However, a 4 core 1 Ghz processor does potentially have the same amount of processing power as a single core 4Ghz processor. Note the very careful wording of the above sentence. If you've got 4 applications and run them all on the 4 core, then they would run at roughly the same speed as the faster single core. By that same reasoning, if you've got 1 application that splits its load near equally across 4 or more threads, then it'll run at about the same speed on both processors.

The problem is very few applications at the moment are properly multithreaded. Most are still written in a single thread and even those that claim to be multithreaded generally don't split the load anywhere near evenly. Often it'll just be a task that's sitting idle on a core 90% of the time until something on another core kicks in and asks it to process something - not particularly ideal.

One answer to this issue is proper concurrent programming, where all (or at least most) of your code is written in a way that inherently uses multipule threads to do its job, even at the smallest levels. Take a look at occam pi - it's a completely different way of coding but one that adheres to this philosophy and is therefore scalable to many, many cores (reaching into the thousands sometimes.) These individual processes can be executed just as easily one after the other on a single core system, or concurrently on a multi core system.

To sum up, single core and multi core processors are not equivalent at all and never will be. Anyone trying to say they're the same is quite frankly wrong. It is however correct to say that the potential processing power of a 1Ghz quad and a 4Ghz single core are similar - but in real world use, this potential isn't yet being fully utilised.

We'll get there eventually, but it'll probably require a whole new generation of programming languages and a whole new shift in thinking. Unfortunately it's not an overnight thing - and we're not there yet.
berry120 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2010, 10:02 AM   #8
Fully Optimized
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: England
Posts: 3,390
Default Re: Question about muticores

CPU speed isn't CPU speed X Number of Cores. Hell if that 'were' the case my OC'd rig would be running @ 16.8Ghz! It doesn't though. A BaseCLocK of 210Mhz multiplied by 20(CPU multiplier) = 4200Mhz not 16800Mhz! It's simple maths and something that your Professor should understand quite easily.

The running speed of the cores is just the rate of the rise-and-fall, high/low, on/off, switching of the pulse that allows the CPU to process the stream of 0's & 1's.

I think your Professor needs to research this further.
__________________

__________________
Lenovo ThinkPad T410 - i7 620M - 8GB RAM - Crucial M4 120GB SSD - 250GB 2nd drive - Intel HD 3000 GPU - 1440x900 - Windows 7/8
REMENIZ Computers
Remeniz is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0