Marc G. Fournier wrote on Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 12:52:24PM -0400: > > I'm going to assume that Dual Core is better (can't believe that they took > a step back) ... but, is how does it rate? I know that HyperThreading is > definitely != Dual CPU ... but how close does Dual Core get?
It is the real thing, at least when it comes to AMD64 and Netburst-based Intel dual-cores. Every core has a full set of own caches just like dual CPU. Yonah (dual-core Pentium-M) has a shared L2 cache. I have benchmarks comparing dual-core 939 socket systems against dual 940 socket systems here: http://cracauer-forum.cons.org/forum/crabench.html In practice, if you compare socket 939 dual-core and 940 dual-CPU there is a little more. In highend mainboard a dual 940 board will have one memory bank per CPU (which is pretty useless performance-wise for general-purpose applications). Socket 939 systems can have faster RAM (a little less useless) but are limited to 4 GB and there is some BWCing to get ECC. CPUs are limited to 2.6 GHz with the FX-60. Socket 940 single-core CPUs can be had up to 2.8 GHz. Martin -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Martin Cracauer <cracauer@cons.org> http://www.cons.org/cracauer/ FreeBSD - where you want to go, today. http://www.freebsd.org/ _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
