Results 1 to 16 of 16
  1.    #1  
    A dual-core processor has many advantages especially for those looking to boost their system's multitasking computing power. Dual-core processors provide two complete execution cores instead of one, each with an independent interface to the frontside bus. Since each core has its own cache, the operating system has sufficient resources to handle intensive tasks in parallel, which provides a noticeable improvement to multitasking.

    A lot of people ask if 1GHz dual core is same as 2GHz single core. Answer is no, as frequency is only part of the equation, no matter how fast a single core is, it can only do one thing at a time. Going to a lower clocked dual is much better than a very fast single core. plus new apps and games build around dual core will never run as smooth on a single core. On top of it it will take less energy to run a dual core than a double frequency single core. So between 1GHz dual core and 2GHz single core processor, dual core wins.

    While it’s almost universally agreed that power efficiency is a priority for these processors, many criticize the amount of processing power these new chips are bringing to mobile devices, and ask why so much performance is necessary. Whether or not mobile applications actually need this much power is not really the concern however; improved processing and graphics performance with little to no additional increase in energy needs will allow future phones to actually be much more efficient in terms of power. This is because ultimately, power efficiency relies in a big part on the ability of the hardware in the phone to complete a task quickly and return to an idle state where it consumes very little power. This “burst” processing, while consuming fairly high amounts of power for very short periods of time, tends to be more economical than prolonged, slower processing. So as long as ARM chipset manufacturers can continue to crank up the performance while keeping power requirements low, there’s nothing but gains to be had.

    The proximity of multiple CPU cores on the same die allows the cache coherency circuitry to operate at a much higher clock-rate than is possible if the signals have to travel off-chip. Combining equivalent CPUs on a single die significantly improves the performance of cache snoop (alternative: Bus snooping) operations. Put simply, this means that signals between different CPUs travel shorter distances, and therefore those signals degrade less. These higher-quality signals allow more data to be sent in a given time period, since individual signals can be shorter and do not need to be repeated as often.

    The largest boost in performance will likely be noticed in improved response-time while running CPU-intensive processes, like antivirus scans, ripping/burning media (requiring file conversion), or searching for folders. For example, if the automatic virus-scan runs while a movie is being watched, the application running the movie is far less likely to be starved of processor power, as the antivirus program will be assigned to a different processor core than the one running the movie playback.
    Assuming that the die can fit into the package, physically, the multi-core CPU designs require much less printed circuit board (PCB) space than do multi-chip SMP designs. Also, a dual-core processor uses slightly less power than two coupled single-core processors, principally because of the decreased power required to drive signals external to the chip. Furthermore, the cores share some circuitry, like the L2 cache and the interface to the front side bus (FSB). In terms of competing technologies for the available silicon die area, multi-core design can make use of proven CPU core library designs and produce a product with lower risk of design error than devising a new wider core-design. Also, adding more cache suffers from diminishing returns.

    Cons: Problem with multi-core is not all programs are developed to use it. An outdated version of an anti-virus application may create a new thread for a scan process, while its GUI thread waits for commands from the user (e.g. cancel the scan). In such cases, a multicore architecture is of little benefit for the application itself due to the single thread doing all heavy lifting and the inability to balance the work evenly across multiple cores. Programming truly multithreaded code often requires complex co-ordination of threads and can easily introduce subtle and difficult-to-find bugs due to the interleaving of processing on data shared between threads (thread-safety). Consequently, such code is much more difficult to debug than single-threaded code when it breaks. Hence Maximizing the utilization of the computing resources provided by multi-core processors requires adjustments both to the operating system (OS) support and to existing application software. Also, the ability of multi-core processors to increase application performance depends on the use of multiple threads within applications.

    Not everything is from me, some I copy and paste as this is getting beyond my expertise.
    Last edited by kkhanmd; 10/31/2010 at 01:04 PM.
    If this helped you hit thanks.
  2. #2  
    Just about the only thing correct about this post is that a dual-core is better than a single core.
  3. #3  
    Well the problem is, some OSes and most applications do not utilize both core, as they are built for single core cpu's.

    hyperthreading also is a very smart, and efficient way to make a single core, a multicore system.
    http://<font color="Navy">Poll: Requ...r webOS</font>

    Coming soon-Calm Alarm
    Quote Originally Posted by SirataXero View Post
    Palm Pimp.
    Comes with 2 free Pixis.
  4. #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by A.Stice View Post
    Just about the only thing correct about this post is that a dual-core is better than a single core.
    And we should just believe you because?...please don't put people down like this...thank you.

    [i]-- Sent from my Palm PrPrPr
    If "If's" and "But's" were candy and nuts we'd all have a Merry Christmas!


  5.    #5  
    While it’s almost universally agreed that power efficiency is a priority for these processors, many criticize the amount of processing power these new chips are bringing to mobile devices, and ask why so much performance is necessary. Whether or not mobile applications actually need this much power is not really the concern however; improved processing and graphics performance with little to no additional increase in energy needs will allow future phones to actually be much more efficient in terms of power. This is because ultimately, power efficiency relies in a big part on the ability of the hardware in the phone to complete a task quickly and return to an idle state where it consumes very little power. This “burst” processing, while consuming fairly high amounts of power for very short periods of time, tends to be more economical than prolonged, slower processing. So as long as ARM chipset manufacturers can continue to crank up the performance while keeping power requirements low, there’s nothing but gains to be had.
    If this helped you hit thanks.
  6. #6  
    kkhanmd;

    Very well articulated!!

    This is precisely what I have seen communicated in all of my own research, and you summed it up quite well in laymen's lagnuage.

    Highly recommended read for all who think that it's the processing speed alone that is the sole important characteristic of smartphone/mobile device CPU's.

    It's ALL abut efficiency and power - TI's OMAP implementation of the ARM specification is what Palm's smartphones appear to be using for their products, and it apears that any WebOS device will be built around multitasking, certainly suggesting that the next higher level devices should/could use the OMAP4 platform chipsets (both dual core, with 4430 clocked up to 1 ghz; the 4440 over 1ghz), which use the 45 nm process and boast huge power/performance specs, as rumored here and elsewhere.

    Last edited by LCGuy; 10/31/2010 at 07:16 AM.
    "The more I learn, the more I realize just how little I really do know!" -Albert Einstein

  7. #7  
    I might not be as smart as most people on here, but your explanation sounds very interesting. Thanks for the info.


    regards,

    [i]--Sent from my palm pre2
  8. #8  
    Never meant to put anybody down, and I'm sorry if it sounded that way. The added part about power efficiency is very correct. However, while each core may be able to access the front side bus independently, they do so through a single interface, giving very little added performance here. Also, in the severe majority of multi-core processors the cpu cache is shared between all cores, not independent of each core. This is so that all cores can work on the same information. The OP's explanation is much more correct for multi proccesor systems, though multi-processor systems achieve greater performance at the cost of power efficiency.

    Also, all processors (both single and multi-core) can work on multiple taks as the same time. This is done through timeslicing. Timeslicing allows the processor to very quickly switch around threads so that they process, for all intents and purposes, simultaneously. Many processors are very very good at timeslicing. This is what hyperthreading is, and it allows the processor timeslice so well that there is almost no difference between it and a multi-core processor.
    Last edited by A.Stice; 10/31/2010 at 10:09 AM.
  9. jwinn35's Avatar
    Posts
    390 Posts
    Global Posts
    396 Global Posts
    #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by spudland View Post
    And we should just believe you because?...please don't put people down like this...thank you.

    [i]-- Sent from my Palm PrPrPr
    yeah I love the your completely wrong but I'm not even going to attempt to say why post. From what I understand dual cores can do things like burn a cd on one processor and you can still do your normal stuff you do on you computer with no slow down because it's all being handled by that one core processor. Other than that it starts to go over my head on computer knowledge. Hey atleast he did come back to explain him or her self.
  10.    #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by A.Stice View Post
    Never meant to put anybody down, and I'm sorry if it sounded that way. The added part about power efficiency is very correct. However, while each core may be able to access the front side bus independently, they do so through a single interface, giving very little added performance here. Also, in the severe majority of multi-core processors the cpu cache is shared between all cores, not independent of each core. This is so that all cores can work on the same information. The OP's explanation is much more correct for multi proccesor systems, though multi-processor systems achieve greater performance at the cost of power efficiency.

    Also, all processors (both single and multi-core) can work on multiple taks as the same time. This is done through timeslicing. Timeslicing allows the processor to very quickly switch around threads so that they process, for all intents and purposes, simultaneously. Many processors are very very good at timeslicing. This is what hyperthreading is, and it allows the processor timeslice so well that there is almost no difference between it and a multi-core processor.
    Designers may couple cores in a multi-core device tightly or loosely. For example, cores may or may not share caches, and they may implement message passing or shared memory inter-core communication methods. Problem with multi-core is not all programs are developed to use it. An outdated version of an anti-virus application may create a new thread for a scan process, while its GUI thread waits for commands from the user (e.g. cancel the scan). In such cases, a multicore architecture is of little benefit for the application itself due to the single thread doing all heavy lifting and the inability to balance the work evenly across multiple cores. Programming truly multithreaded code often requires complex co-ordination of threads and can easily introduce subtle and difficult-to-find bugs due to the interleaving of processing on data shared between threads (thread-safety). Consequently, such code is much more difficult to debug than single-threaded code when it breaks. Hence Maximizing the utilization of the computing resources provided by multi-core processors requires adjustments both to the operating system (OS) support and to existing application software. Also, the ability of multi-core processors to increase application performance depends on the use of multiple threads within applications. If developers are unable to design software to fully exploit the resources provided by multiple cores, then they will ultimately reach an insurmountable performance ceiling.
    If this helped you hit thanks.
  11. #11  
    Less copy and pasta!

    You kinda contradict yourself in your first and last post saying that between a 1ghz dual core and 2ghz single core the dual core is better then saying that you can only use both cores if the program is written in it. eg. a program can only use one core so assuming both the single and dual cores are on par clock for clock with the same architechure then the 2ghz would beat the 1ghz.

    All pc gamers with quad cores and their fancy i7s know what this is about ahah.
  12.    #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by ChickenMan View Post
    Less copy and pasta!

    You kinda contradict yourself in your first and last post saying that between a 1ghz dual core and 2ghz single core the dual core is better then saying that you can only use both cores if the program is written in it. eg. a program can only use one core so assuming both the single and dual cores are on par clock for clock with the same architechure then the 2ghz would beat the 1ghz.

    All pc gamers with quad cores and their fancy i7s know what this is about ahah.
    Again its more for multi-tasking than running one program in the best possible way. One program if written for a dual core in mind will run better in a dual core. However if you want to multi-task better, dual core's are better.

    Since I wanted to give cons of multi-cores as well, thats why you hearing both sides of the story and hence appears like contradiction.
    If this helped you hit thanks.
  13.    #13  
    Only problem is the UI needs to be re-written extensively for dual core.
    If this helped you hit thanks.
  14.    #14  
    If we do get support for dual core, it would mean, prior phones may no longer be upgraded to new software, kind of what Apple did with 1st and 2nd Gen iPhone
    If this helped you hit thanks.
  15. #15  
    Why would that necessarily be the case? They would just have to make sure that the OS intelligently handles the threading. Just because a system is designed to run on multiple cores doesn't mean it can't also run well on a single core processor.
  16.    #16  
    I guess you are right, depends how good the coders are
    If this helped you hit thanks.

Posting Permissions