the clock speed is far from the only factor... a 1.66 with a 2mb cache & a large buss speed can be faster than a 3.4 p4...
from what I've seen, a dual core can do multiple threading, even if each program works only single thread, but, they are still going to share the same buss' & the same ram, so to that end, I'm under the assumption that 2 single core machines, with all else being equal, will be faster than one single core machine....
a dual core laptop sounds great, but what are the real differences between that & it's desktop counterpart.... I mean obviously power consumption will be lower, but at what cost to performance? I mean what's the real difference there?
The Core Duo and Core 2 Duo are both excellent choices for use in a carpc. The wrapped application architecture (i.e. front end on top of desktop apps) of most of the carpc software we use tightly aligns with the work profile that these chips were designed to excel at. Low power, heat and cost are also compelling arguments.
I'm in the process of upgrading my rig to a T2400 (core duo) based system. I don't have much time these days so the upgrade has been progressing slow but performance of this setup on the bench FAR exceeds my current M10k solution.
so the core duo is the older version and it's the laptop version?
how do they compare to an equivilant core 2 duo mobile version?
iirc core duo (older) and core 2 duo (newer) come in both desktop and laptop forms
right now i'm running an core 2 duo e6300 on my main comp and let me tell you it kicks some serious ***. from what i remember it's only listed as a 1.8 ghz but do not let that fool you.
here's an article about the differences
Lots of half-truths in this thread. v1per did a good job explaining things, but allow me to summarize:
1. Dual core benefits almost everyone. You may not think you're multitasking, but you usually are. The speed differences often don't show up in benchmarks because many benchmarks are single-threaded, but you'll notice a huge difference in responsiveness even at the desktop level.
2. 64 bit benefits almost no one in a mobile or desktop environment. All processors have had 64 bit or larger internal systems for a long time, so the ability to work with huge numbers isn't much of a gain. The biggest gain to 64 bit is the ability to address huge amounts of RAM. Video editing, extremely high resolution photo work, databases, and specialized simulation software benefits from this. Your CarPC will not. That said, most modern processors are 64 bit anyways (Athlon 64, certain Semprons, Turion 64, Opteron, recent Pentiums, and Core 2 chips) so this is a non-issue.
3. Core Duo was basically a mobile-only chip. Apple sold desktops with it because it was better than the Pentium 4, but most other computer companies waited for the Core 2 to start making Core-based desktops. Both the Core Solo/Duo and Core 2 Duo have "Ultra Low Voltage" versions which cost more per clock but run at lower voltages (and thus temperatures).
4. The differences between Core Duo and Core 2 Duo are fairly minor on paper. Internally they're rather different, but from the user side Core 2 adds 64 bit and about a 5-10% performance boost clock-for-clock. Core 2 is also on the LGA775 platform shared with the last-generation Pentium 4s so desktop motherboards are easier to find than the Pentium M based Core Duo (Core Solo = Pentium M)
Subjectively, I love my Core Duo. I've been running a 1.83GHz Macbook as my mobile workstation since September and I couldn't ask for anything except a few more USB ports. With 2GB RAM it benchmarks nearly dead even with my 2GHz Athlon X2 desktop in anything that doesn't require 3D.
In my personal opinion, Core 2 Duo is the absolute best choice in mobile processing at this point in time. I'm an AMD fanboy, but the Turion X2 just can't compete either clock-for-clock or on power consumption.
This entire thread almost makes me want to laugh. Considering the type of people on this forum i would think you would understand Processor tech a bit more.
First, I think the Core or Core 2 CPUs are ideal for car PC's. They are designed to be far more power and heat effiecent than any previous intel cpu. AMD are following the trend, but the intel chips are currently the most efficient cpus that provide decent performance. Get a core 2 duo if you want the best performance per watt available right now. (the reason apple switched to intel chips)
As far as the whole discussion on 32 bit vs 64 bit cpu's goes. Well, you see when compile a program it is basically translated to machine code, repesented by an instruction set. These instructions are executed either by the OS or directly on the CPU. Windows is a 32 bit OS. that means unless you are running 64 bit linux, windows server, or XP 64 bit edition in your car, all applications will only be using the 32 bit instruction set. NOT the 64 bit instruction set. Also not ethat 64 bit instructions take up twice as much ram / cache as 32 bit instructions.
Think of it all like running Win 3.1 (a 16bit application) on a modern computer. It runs extremely fast. Thats because a 32bit chip has twice the capablility of the older 16bit chips
NO, NO, NO. 32 bit has nothing to do with it. It runs faster, because the chip is faster.
all it means is that the cpu can recognize a series of 32 1's and 0's as as instruction, such as add. the more bits you have, the more types of instructions you can represent. But is an app is compiled for 16 bit, it can not use the more complex 32 bit instructions.
Also , the AMD 64's do perfrom better than a lot of 32 bit processors, but its not because they are 64 bit capable. In fact the AMD 64's swith into a 32 bit mode when running a 32 bit OS and will not execute 64 bit instructions in that mode. The intel Core 2's are also a 64 bit capable chip and function in a similar way.
I dont know why Itanium was mentioned. Itanium isnt even an x86 CPU. Is a RISC chip that has an emulation layer for x86, x86-64 and IA64 instruction sets.
meyer64 - chances are many of us could run circles around you concerning car audio and we could use the same thought process as you about the type of users on this forum. But we don't. Why? Because there are no dumb questions and this forum exists for this very reason. To inform and to ask questions.
However, I do appreciate your input, as do others I imagine.
I meant no disrespect or offense to any one. I have learned a lot about a lot of things on this forum (audio related and otherwise). I do know a fair amount about car audio as well as PC's. But i make no claim to know everything. I was only trying to set the record straight on some topics mentioned in this thread. Some things that were posted about CPu architecture and performance were flat out wrong. They were not a matter of opinion, or theory like a lot of discussions on the forum. I'm sorry if I offended you or anyone else. wolrah and v1per may have phrased things better than I, but made most of the same points I was trying to make.
I never said anyting about the question being dumb. In fact I think it was a good question, one that aparently lots of people are confused about. You deserve to have an accurate response, thats all I was trying to provide. The whole 64 bit-32 bit argument really doesnt even belong here. I provided my opinion that Core 2 duo processors are a great choice for car Pc's if you need that much computing power, which it seems you do. They are a far wiser choice than a comparible pentium 4 or athlon chip. This is due mainly to thier high performance per watt. As well as running multiple threads at the same time. Cpmuters seem to run lots of things at once, but a single core chip has to swap processes all the time to create that illusion. A dual core chip really can run two processes at the same time, improving performance. Check some benchmarks, the Core 2 duo is the best processor out (for a reasonable price). And it just happens to run fairly cool and not suck down too much power.
Also, to get back to the original question, Your computer is running multiple threads for various applications almost constantly, especially if you are running windows. Just because a single app may only use one thread, doesnt mean that nothing else is happening. There are normally dozens of processes running in the backgroung and a dual core chip will make the system as a whole perfom better. Although it may not improve the performance of a single threaded application. I hope that makes sense to you. So in your case I think that a core 2 duo is the best way to go, especially if you are running multiple instances of programs.
It is a fact that windows vista will perform better on dual core as it is written to tak e advantage of it, but is is also bennificial to have now, regardelss of the OS you are running.
yeah bro', what's so funny... many people here are not computer technicians, & PC's are just a hobby to some here, so why criticize someone asking about technical details about the latest technology...
my first experience with dual cores came years ago with a dual xenon server I had... at the time I learned that this wouldn't benefit regular 32bit programs at all, so it was questionable to me how much of an advantage a dual core would be with xp.... on top of that, there is info out there that a 32 bit operating system won't take advantage of the 64bit processor, even you said that the processor would revert to 32bit....
vista is just on the horizon & I don't think it's totally asinine to question weather the dual core is more geared towards the future, & vista & how much of a benefit it is with current 32 bit software & os... especially since the dual cores are all touted as "vista ready", yeah, that's pretty laughable huh?
I did learn a bit in the past few days about this, thanks in part to this thread, sure goggle could have given all the answers, all by itself too, but then what would we have to talk about:D
EDIT: I posted this before I read your post above me... it sure sounded condescending & pompous of you initially... no hard feelings here:D
I was not criticizing the question at all. I think some of you may have taken my first post the wrong way. I thought that some of the responses were funny simply because they made no sense. Would you laugh is someone said to run 16 gauge wire to thier 2000 watt amp? Probably. All I wanted to do is give the correct answer, if people want to believe posts that are flat out wrong, fine. Even wolrah said that there are a lot of half truths in this thread. I say again, 64 bit has nothing to do with dual core. It just happens that most dual core processors are also 64 bit, but not all.
The advantages of dual core can be seen now since your computer already runs multiple threads at once, whether they are spun by a single application or many, it doesn’t matter.
The question that really wasn’t mentioned, but probably should be: Will I see a benefit from having a 64 bit CPU now, or is that geared more toward the future and vista?
Answer: There isn’t much of a benefit now as almost all OS’s and Applications are compiled for 32 bit CPU’s. 64 bit will allow for the use of a wider, more advanced instruction set and the use of more ram. Vista is a 64 bit compatible OS. So a dual core 64 bit CPU is great to have now and in the future.