I've been looking at doing a new buy or upgrade and when i've been looking at processors I thought this one

13323 INTEL Core 2 Duo E6850 3.0GHz FSB1333MHz 4MB LGA775 Dual-Core $298.00

is a 3.0GHz chip, I've been told since it's a "Dual-Core" it's basically running like a 6.0GHz. Is that right?

If thats right i have no problem in admitting ignorance to the evolution of the cpu and everything else in the pc world.

It would be like a 6GHz chip is the software you were running was perfectly optimized for running two instruction threads simultaniously. Unfortunately, even multi-core optimized software isn't 100% efficient and many applications and games aren't even designed to take advantage of it yet.

Its two cores - each one running at 3.0Ghz.. not a 6.0Ghz CPU. - What he said ^^

I just bought an E6750.. its $60-70 cheaper and only 2.6Ghz so not a huge difference. Plus most of them will Overclock to 3.2Ghz quite easily (3.0Ghz as well) if you're in to that.

Well i want something to own COD4

I got an E6750 (stock speed) with 2GB DDR2 800 and an 8800GT and COD4 runs on high settings at 1680x1050. It runs really well.

I expect no C2D would have any issues with CoD4 given the minimum is a P4 at 2.4Ghz.

Even if the application is perfectly optimized, 2 isn't twice as fast as one, or 4 twice as fast as 2. The F@H SMP client is optimized for 4 CPU cores. At 2.4GHz my Quad isn't twice as fast as my E6300 was at 2.45GHz, more like 70% faster. Even at 3GHz it's not twice as fast, and all 4 cores are utilized at 25%.

I suppose I should have said "software AND hardware perfectly optimized" because there is an overhead required when coordinating multiple processing units but it can probably be reduced... that and I did use the word "like" before it to cover my ass as to why it will never be identical.

The linux SMP utilizes about 93% of each core on a dual core cpu while running in a virtual machine on a XP computer. (Puts out a lot better PPD as well while running cooler..... ).

F@H on Windoze
1 client, dual core or HT, 50%
2 clients, dual core or HT, 100%
1 client, quad core, 25%
4 clients, quad core 100%
SMP, Quad Core, 25% each core, 100% overall

93% sounds like 7% is being lost to running the VM

Thread Hijack in progress...

Yeah, but if I put a hint out that there might be a used E6600 on the market shortly for $100 would I be forgiven????

I'm surprised the Windoze SMP doesn't max out all 4 cores on a quad... I don't remember that from running it on a C2D... I think the linux SMP is actually more efficient thus the 93% usage and lower temps. My PPD went up 20%+ when I switched to linux SMP inside a virtual machine. (temps dropped 10C+ as well).

It does max out all 4 cores, it's one CPU, 4 cores, 25 x 4.

http://folding.extremeoverclocking.com/ ... s=&u=28050

Guess which month I added the Quad...

Nothing wrong with a used E6600

huh?

so in easy terms, dual core 3.0GHz = ? if it was a single core

There's no exact comparison other than to say that a dual core 3.0Ghz is two 3ghz cpus, but that most older apps do not utilize those cores effectively.

In some applications (mostly # crunching benchmarks like super-pi, or older games) a higher clocked single core will beat out a lower clocked dual core.

My experience though has been that once you throw in multiple applications, a multi-core cpu will offer a better response time while moving between apps.

If you want to own in COD4 a 6750 will do it.I run a 6750 at stock 2.6 with a 8800gt and i run at my crt's max res which is 1280x1024 with 4xaa and 4xansio with vsync on i get a constant 60fps also run crysis at the same res with everything on med and get anywhere from 60 to 30 in heavy fire fights looks great and is very playable even at 30 fps,this is with 2G of ram and win xp.