Ranger REG said:
I need some help, gang.
We have heard a lot of brouhaha over the dual-core processors. But it's screwing me up when clock speed is no longer relevant.
It's even worse when the computer game's -- or any software's -- specified minimum system requirements don't tell you if certain dual-core processors can run the game smoothly.
Can a game that requires an Intel 2 GHz CPU run on Intel 1.6 GHz dual-core CPU smoothly?
If you got a game that requires 3 GHz CPU but you got a 2.8 GHz dual-core, are you screwed?
Can anybody list which processors (single-core AND dual-core) is power or better than the other?
In addition to what everyone's mentioned upthread about the effect of multithreading (and CPUs in general) on gaming, the problem is that those guidelines were written when the expected CPU was a Pentium 4 or Pentium 4 derived CPU (Pentium D, Celeron D). Way back when Intel launched the Pentium 4, the idea was to run at a really high clock speed, but get less done with each cycle. The initial Pentium 4s weren't all that great -- in many cases slower than the fastest Pentium IIIs and Athlons -- but after some improvements (more cache and a faster bus speed mostly) and a die shrink allowed Intel to ramp up clockspeeds farther, they were the best chips on the market for a while. And since their clock speeds were so much faster than AMD chips that weren't all that much worse in terms of actual performance, AMD moved away from advertising clock speeds with the Athlon XP, and started promoting 'model numbers' -- which, though AMD completely denies this, were about the clock speed of the Pentium 4 chip they saw as the equivalent model.
Fast forward a little bit and a few things have happened. One is that Intel has a lot of trouble getting Pentium 4s much faster than 3.2 GHz (though they would eventually release a 3.8 GHz model). Another is that the Pentium 4 family really uses too much power for notebooks, so they develop a new CPU that, like the Pentium III and the Athlon, runs at a (relatively) lower clock speed but gets more done clock for clock, called the Pentium M (later there would be a budget derivative called Celeron M). Overclockers notice that except in a few cases where the Pentium 4 architecture really helps, the Pentium M is actually faster than the Pentium 4 despite being clocked much lower (basically where hyperthreading helps, and where SSE helps).
Another is that AMD finally gets their long-delayed Athlon 64 out the door, and except in a few cases where the Petium 4's architecture helps it a lot (see above), it's noticeably faster than the Pentium 4. And while AMD's ramping up clock speeds, Intel's pretty much stalled. Next problem is that when dual-core CPUs (while the Pentium D and the Athlon 64 X2 launched at about the same time, the latter is a much more refined design; the former's pretty much two Pentium 4s on one chip) start coming into play, the few advantages of the Pentium 4 are gone (because two real CPUs are better than two virtual CPUs, and the marginal benefits of more than two CPUs aren't great). And the Pentium D is notoriously power-hungry.
So Intel's on a crash program to get a new CPU design out, basically trying to get the best of their notebook and desktop designs together (though starting from the Pentium M base). First, they launched their first 'true' dual core CPU -- the notebook Core Duo chip. And then this summer they launched the desktop and notebook Core 2 Duo, and it was good; the slowest Core 2 Duos were competitive with the fastest Athlon 64 X2s, and AMD had nothing that could touch the fastest ones.
So here's how Intel's dual-core desktop CPU lineup looks now
~$100 Pentium D 805/820 ; 2.66/2.8 GHz Pentium 4-based
~$125 Pentium D 915/925; 2.8/3.0 GHz Pentium 4-based
~$150 Pentium D 945; 3.4 GHz Pentium 4-based
~$175 Core 2 Duo E6300; 1.86 GHz New architecture
~$225 Core 2 Duo E6400; 2.13 GHz New architecture
~$300 Core 2 Duo E6600; 2.4 GHz New architecture
~$500 Core 2 Duo E6700; 2.66 GHz New architecture
~$1000 Core 2 Extreme X6800; 2.93 GHz New architecture
... and despite running a good 1.5 GHz slower, the Core 2 Duo E6300 will beat the Pentium D 945 pretty handily in just about any benchmark.
So back to your question about a 1.6 GHz dual-core Intel CPU running a game that 'requires' a 2 GHz CPU. Well, Intel never made a dual-core Pentium 4 derivative that slow, so what you've got at that speed is a Core Duo or a Core 2 Duo. And a 1.6 GHz Core Duo is going to be able to handily anything that a 2 GHz Pentium 4 could*.
As for the dual core 2.8 GHz vs. 3 GHz single core, that's a different story. Mostly because the only dual-core 2.8 GHz CPUs you could get are either relatively slow Pentium Ds or relatively rare and once-high-end (now effectively midrange, no matter how AMD prices them) Athlon 64 X2s. With the former, I'd be concerned, but only a little bit, because 200 MHz in a Pentium 4-derived chip doesn't matter much, so if the extra core helps at all, you're fine; with the latter, you've got absolutely nothing to worry about, as your CPU is well more than adequate.
* There are some esoteric exceptions to this, but they aren't relevant to gaming.
