'True' vs. 'Pseudo' Quad Core

Trying to decide between dual core and quad core for my next Dell desktop.

From what I understand, Intel's current quad-core processors (at least,
the ones offered by Dell) are not truly quad core, but more like two
dual-core processors glued together. There are four cores there, no
doubt, but certain components are shared between the two halves.
Obviously, I'm missing a lot of information.

What really is the difference, if anything, between the current
generation of Intel quad core processors and a 'true' quad core? This
may be a huge question, so I'd be fine with links to more detailed
explanations.

Are today's Intel quad-cores a legitimate choice, or are they a
'gimmick', like hyperthreading, something to satisfy the market's demand
while they work on the 'real deal'?

Thanks for your help.

Daddy

"Daddy" <> wrote in message
news:gcnrnk$koc$...
> Trying to decide between dual core and quad core for my next Dell desktop.
>
> From what I understand, Intel's current quad-core processors (at least,
> the ones offered by Dell) are not truly quad core, but more like two
> dual-core processors glued together. There are four cores there, no doubt,
> but certain components are shared between the two halves. Obviously, I'm
> missing a lot of information.
>
> What really is the difference, if anything, between the current generation
> of Intel quad core processors and a 'true' quad core? This may be a huge
> question, so I'd be fine with links to more detailed explanations.
>
> Are today's Intel quad-cores a legitimate choice, or are they a 'gimmick',
> like hyperthreading, something to satisfy the market's demand while they
> work on the 'real deal'?
>
> Thanks for your help.
>
> Daddy



You'll likely never see any performance difference one way or another
between a Quad and an upper end Core2Duo imo, unless you're one of those
users who obsess over various benchmarking programs.

They're all damned fast. Therefore, I personally am guided by price.

Hi!

> What really is the difference, if anything, between the current
> generation of Intel quad core processors and a 'true' quad core?

I think it can be summed up pretty easily. A true quad core processor
would have four fully independent cores. Each one would contain
everything needed to perform as a single CPU.

You could think of a system with four single processors installed.
Each processor there can function on its own.

In reality, I *think* that some components (like the cache) are shared
between cores.

> Are today's Intel quad-cores a legitimate choice, or are they a
> 'gimmick', like hyperthreading, something to satisfy the market's
> demand while they work on the 'real deal'?

Hyperthreading is not a gimmick per se...but it's not what it would
appear to be from the outside world. A hyperthreaded processor tries
to make use of functions in the CPU that would be idle while it is
doing something else. It "looks" like a second processor is available,
but that is not the case.

The multi-core processors actually do have more than one CPU inside,
but some things--possibly the cache--are shared between the CPUs.
Software that can make use of multiple processors should also see a
benefit from processors with multiple cores, since each one can be
assigned to a different task.

William

See below.

William R. Walsh wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> What really is the difference, if anything, between the current
>> generation of Intel quad core processors and a 'true' quad core?
>
> I think it can be summed up pretty easily. A true quad core processor
> would have four fully independent cores. Each one would contain
> everything needed to perform as a single CPU.
>
> You could think of a system with four single processors installed.
> Each processor there can function on its own.
>
> In reality, I *think* that some components (like the cache) are shared
> between cores.
>
>> Are today's Intel quad-cores a legitimate choice, or are they a
>> 'gimmick', like hyperthreading, something to satisfy the market's
>> demand while they work on the 'real deal'?
>
> Hyperthreading is not a gimmick per se...but it's not what it would
> appear to be from the outside world. A hyperthreaded processor tries
> to make use of functions in the CPU that would be idle while it is
> doing something else. It "looks" like a second processor is available,
> but that is not the case.
>
> The multi-core processors actually do have more than one CPU inside,
> but some things--possibly the cache--are shared between the CPUs.
> Software that can make use of multiple processors should also see a
> benefit from processors with multiple cores, since each one can be
> assigned to a different task.
>
> William

Just about any currently available processor will blow smoke rings on my
P4, Stew. That's not what I'm getting at.

By the word 'gimmick' I meant no disrespect. For example, hyperthreading
was 'sort of' like a dual core processor, but once real dual core
processors arrived nobody talked about hyperthreading any more, and
perhaps people who spent the extra money on a hyperthreaded processor
wished they would have waited a little longer for the 'genuine article'
to arrive. It's that situation I'm hoping to avoid. If I am going to
justify spending the extra bucks, I don't want 'sort of' a quad core
processor if the real thing is coming down the road. Instead, I'll buy a
dual core now and make my /next/ computer a 'real' quad core.

Am I just being silly?

Daddy

"Daddy" <> wrote in message
news:gcobl6$nu6$...
> See below.
>
> William R. Walsh wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>>> What really is the difference, if anything, between the current
>>> generation of Intel quad core processors and a 'true' quad core?
>>
>> I think it can be summed up pretty easily. A true quad core processor
>> would have four fully independent cores. Each one would contain
>> everything needed to perform as a single CPU.
>>
>> You could think of a system with four single processors installed.
>> Each processor there can function on its own.
>>
>> In reality, I *think* that some components (like the cache) are shared
>> between cores.
>>
>>> Are today's Intel quad-cores a legitimate choice, or are they a
>>> 'gimmick', like hyperthreading, something to satisfy the market's
>>> demand while they work on the 'real deal'?
>>
>> Hyperthreading is not a gimmick per se...but it's not what it would
>> appear to be from the outside world. A hyperthreaded processor tries
>> to make use of functions in the CPU that would be idle while it is
>> doing something else. It "looks" like a second processor is available,
>> but that is not the case.
>>
>> The multi-core processors actually do have more than one CPU inside,
>> but some things--possibly the cache--are shared between the CPUs.
>> Software that can make use of multiple processors should also see a
>> benefit from processors with multiple cores, since each one can be
>> assigned to a different task.
>>
>> William
>
> Just about any currently available processor will blow smoke rings on my
> P4, Stew. That's not what I'm getting at.
>
> By the word 'gimmick' I meant no disrespect. For example, hyperthreading
> was 'sort of' like a dual core processor, but once real dual core
> processors arrived nobody talked about hyperthreading any more, and
> perhaps people who spent the extra money on a hyperthreaded processor
> wished they would have waited a little longer for the 'genuine article' to
> arrive. It's that situation I'm hoping to avoid. If I am going to justify
> spending the extra bucks, I don't want 'sort of' a quad core processor if
> the real thing is coming down the road. Instead, I'll buy a dual core now
> and make my /next/ computer a 'real' quad core.
>
> Am I just being silly?
>
> Daddy



Nope. And consider hyper-threading to be Intel hyper-marketing. Sort of
like the RDRAM/Rambus craze that lasted about 15 minutes. g

Value for the buck is where I buy. I only bought the Quad because it met a
certain price point at that time.

I don't think we have a disagreement.

<below>
"S.Lewis" <> wrote in message news:CnQHk.46296$. ..
>
> "Daddy" <> wrote in message
> news:gcobl6$nu6$...
>> See below.
>>
>> William R. Walsh wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>>> What really is the difference, if anything, between the current
>>>> generation of Intel quad core processors and a 'true' quad core?
>>>
>>> I think it can be summed up pretty easily. A true quad core processor
>>> would have four fully independent cores. Each one would contain
>>> everything needed to perform as a single CPU.
>>>
>>> You could think of a system with four single processors installed.
>>> Each processor there can function on its own.
>>>
>>> In reality, I *think* that some components (like the cache) are shared
>>> between cores.
>>>
>>>> Are today's Intel quad-cores a legitimate choice, or are they a
>>>> 'gimmick', like hyperthreading, something to satisfy the market's
>>>> demand while they work on the 'real deal'?
>>>
>>> Hyperthreading is not a gimmick per se...but it's not what it would
>>> appear to be from the outside world. A hyperthreaded processor tries
>>> to make use of functions in the CPU that would be idle while it is
>>> doing something else. It "looks" like a second processor is available,
>>> but that is not the case.
>>>
>>> The multi-core processors actually do have more than one CPU inside,
>>> but some things--possibly the cache--are shared between the CPUs.
>>> Software that can make use of multiple processors should also see a
>>> benefit from processors with multiple cores, since each one can be
>>> assigned to a different task.
>>>
>>> William
>>
>> Just about any currently available processor will blow smoke rings on my
>> P4, Stew. That's not what I'm getting at.
>>
>> By the word 'gimmick' I meant no disrespect. For example, hyperthreading
>> was 'sort of' like a dual core processor, but once real dual core
>> processors arrived nobody talked about hyperthreading any more, and
>> perhaps people who spent the extra money on a hyperthreaded processor
>> wished they would have waited a little longer for the 'genuine article' to
>> arrive. It's that situation I'm hoping to avoid. If I am going to justify
>> spending the extra bucks, I don't want 'sort of' a quad core processor if
>> the real thing is coming down the road. Instead, I'll buy a dual core now
>> and make my /next/ computer a 'real' quad core.
>>
>> Am I just being silly?
>>
>> Daddy
>
>
>
> Nope. And consider hyper-threading to be Intel hyper-marketing. Sort of
> like the RDRAM/Rambus craze that lasted about 15 minutes. g
>
> Value for the buck is where I buy. I only bought the Quad because it met a
> certain price point at that time.
>
> I don't think we have a disagreement.

<lol> Okay, I can accept that I'm being silly. I'll let my bang-for-the-buck-ometer be my guide.

Daddy

"Daddy" <> wrote in message
news:gcobl6$nu6$...
> See below.
>
> William R. Walsh wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>>> What really is the difference, if anything, between the current
>>> generation of Intel quad core processors and a 'true' quad core?
>>
>> I think it can be summed up pretty easily. A true quad core processor
>> would have four fully independent cores. Each one would contain
>> everything needed to perform as a single CPU.
>>
>> You could think of a system with four single processors installed.
>> Each processor there can function on its own.
>>
>> In reality, I *think* that some components (like the cache) are shared
>> between cores.
>>
>>> Are today's Intel quad-cores a legitimate choice, or are they a
>>> 'gimmick', like hyperthreading, something to satisfy the market's
>>> demand while they work on the 'real deal'?
>>
>> Hyperthreading is not a gimmick per se...but it's not what it would
>> appear to be from the outside world. A hyperthreaded processor tries
>> to make use of functions in the CPU that would be idle while it is
>> doing something else. It "looks" like a second processor is available,
>> but that is not the case.
>>
>> The multi-core processors actually do have more than one CPU inside,
>> but some things--possibly the cache--are shared between the CPUs.
>> Software that can make use of multiple processors should also see a
>> benefit from processors with multiple cores, since each one can be
>> assigned to a different task.
>>
>> William
>
> Just about any currently available processor will blow smoke rings on my
> P4, Stew. That's not what I'm getting at.
>
> By the word 'gimmick' I meant no disrespect. For example, hyperthreading
> was 'sort of' like a dual core processor, but once real dual core
> processors arrived nobody talked about hyperthreading any more, and
> perhaps people who spent the extra money on a hyperthreaded processor
> wished they would have waited a little longer for the 'genuine article' to
> arrive.

FYI hyper-threading technology was dropped for the existing core 2 range of
processors but has returned with the upcoming core i7 processors.
Nehalem will be four core processors implementing hyper-threading, so will
be capable of simutaneously handling 8 threads. Handy for those users
heavily into multi-tasking.
Of course to take advantage of the newer processors a new motherboard and
RAM will be required.
Perhaps software vendors will write programs in the future that can take
advantage of all those threads.

"Intel Core i7 is a family of three Intel Desktop x86-64 processors. Core i7
is the first Intel family to be released using the Intel Nehalem
microarchitecture and is the successor to the Intel Core 2 family"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_3


> It's that situation I'm hoping to avoid. If I am going to justify spending
> the extra bucks, I don't want 'sort of' a quad core processor if the real
> thing is coming down the road. Instead, I'll buy a dual core now and make
> my /next/ computer a 'real' quad core.
>
> Am I just being silly?

Horses for courses. If you are into games a faster dual core processor
usually beats a slower quad core.
Some worstation type programs (video rendering, photoshop, etc) benefit from
quad core.

"Daddy" <> wrote in message
news:gcoqj6$rj7$...
<below>
"S.Lewis" <> wrote in message
news:CnQHk.46296$. ..
>
> "Daddy" <> wrote in message
> news:gcobl6$nu6$...
>> See below.
>>
>> William R. Walsh wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>>> What really is the difference, if anything, between the current
>>>> generation of Intel quad core processors and a 'true' quad core?
>>>
>>> I think it can be summed up pretty easily. A true quad core processor
>>> would have four fully independent cores. Each one would contain
>>> everything needed to perform as a single CPU.
>>>
>>> You could think of a system with four single processors installed.
>>> Each processor there can function on its own.
>>>
>>> In reality, I *think* that some components (like the cache) are shared
>>> between cores.
>>>
>>>> Are today's Intel quad-cores a legitimate choice, or are they a
>>>> 'gimmick', like hyperthreading, something to satisfy the market's
>>>> demand while they work on the 'real deal'?
>>>
>>> Hyperthreading is not a gimmick per se...but it's not what it would
>>> appear to be from the outside world. A hyperthreaded processor tries
>>> to make use of functions in the CPU that would be idle while it is
>>> doing something else. It "looks" like a second processor is available,
>>> but that is not the case.
>>>
>>> The multi-core processors actually do have more than one CPU inside,
>>> but some things--possibly the cache--are shared between the CPUs.
>>> Software that can make use of multiple processors should also see a
>>> benefit from processors with multiple cores, since each one can be
>>> assigned to a different task.
>>>
>>> William
>>
>> Just about any currently available processor will blow smoke rings on my
>> P4, Stew. That's not what I'm getting at.
>>
>> By the word 'gimmick' I meant no disrespect. For example, hyperthreading
>> was 'sort of' like a dual core processor, but once real dual core
>> processors arrived nobody talked about hyperthreading any more, and
>> perhaps people who spent the extra money on a hyperthreaded processor
>> wished they would have waited a little longer for the 'genuine article'
>> to
>> arrive. It's that situation I'm hoping to avoid. If I am going to justify
>> spending the extra bucks, I don't want 'sort of' a quad core processor if
>> the real thing is coming down the road. Instead, I'll buy a dual core now
>> and make my /next/ computer a 'real' quad core.
>>
>> Am I just being silly?
>>
>> Daddy
>
>
>
> Nope. And consider hyper-threading to be Intel hyper-marketing. Sort of
> like the RDRAM/Rambus craze that lasted about 15 minutes. g
>
> Value for the buck is where I buy. I only bought the Quad because it met
> a
> certain price point at that time.
>
> I don't think we have a disagreement.

<lol> Okay, I can accept that I'm being silly. I'll let my
bang-for-the-buck-ometer be my guide.

Daddy


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>


As you're configuring the system, just get the most capable CPU you can get
within your sense of value. You'll notice the price premium differences
when putting the system together.

It's not as if there is a huge wealth of applications coded to fully utilize
multi-core processors (someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't
think so).

Additionally, I know of no (mainstream) software written to take advantage
of hyperthreading.

So, no. You're not being silly imo.


Stew

Thanks to everyone. I know that I can get the real deal from this newsgroup.

As of right now I believe there are few applications that can take
advantage of multiple cores. But you know it's only a matter of time
before they'll be here.

Daddy

S.Lewis wrote:
> "Daddy" <> wrote in message
> news:gcoqj6$rj7$...
> <below>
> "S.Lewis" <> wrote in message
> news:CnQHk.46296$. ..
>> "Daddy" <> wrote in message
>> news:gcobl6$nu6$...
>>> See below.
>>>
>>> William R. Walsh wrote:
>>>> Hi!
>>>>
>>>>> What really is the difference, if anything, between the current
>>>>> generation of Intel quad core processors and a 'true' quad core?
>>>> I think it can be summed up pretty easily. A true quad core processor
>>>> would have four fully independent cores. Each one would contain
>>>> everything needed to perform as a single CPU.
>>>>
>>>> You could think of a system with four single processors installed.
>>>> Each processor there can function on its own.
>>>>
>>>> In reality, I *think* that some components (like the cache) are shared
>>>> between cores.
>>>>
>>>>> Are today's Intel quad-cores a legitimate choice, or are they a
>>>>> 'gimmick', like hyperthreading, something to satisfy the market's
>>>>> demand while they work on the 'real deal'?
>>>> Hyperthreading is not a gimmick per se...but it's not what it would
>>>> appear to be from the outside world. A hyperthreaded processor tries
>>>> to make use of functions in the CPU that would be idle while it is
>>>> doing something else. It "looks" like a second processor is available,
>>>> but that is not the case.
>>>>
>>>> The multi-core processors actually do have more than one CPU inside,
>>>> but some things--possibly the cache--are shared between the CPUs.
>>>> Software that can make use of multiple processors should also see a
>>>> benefit from processors with multiple cores, since each one can be
>>>> assigned to a different task.
>>>>
>>>> William
>>> Just about any currently available processor will blow smoke rings on my
>>> P4, Stew. That's not what I'm getting at.
>>>
>>> By the word 'gimmick' I meant no disrespect. For example, hyperthreading
>>> was 'sort of' like a dual core processor, but once real dual core
>>> processors arrived nobody talked about hyperthreading any more, and
>>> perhaps people who spent the extra money on a hyperthreaded processor
>>> wished they would have waited a little longer for the 'genuine article'
>>> to
>>> arrive. It's that situation I'm hoping to avoid. If I am going to justify
>>> spending the extra bucks, I don't want 'sort of' a quad core processor if
>>> the real thing is coming down the road. Instead, I'll buy a dual core now
>>> and make my /next/ computer a 'real' quad core.
>>>
>>> Am I just being silly?
>>>
>>> Daddy
>>
>>
>> Nope. And consider hyper-threading to be Intel hyper-marketing. Sort of
>> like the RDRAM/Rambus craze that lasted about 15 minutes. g
>>
>> Value for the buck is where I buy. I only bought the Quad because it met
>> a
>> certain price point at that time.
>>
>> I don't think we have a disagreement.
>
> <lol> Okay, I can accept that I'm being silly. I'll let my
> bang-for-the-buck-ometer be my guide.
>
> Daddy
>
>
>
>
> As you're configuring the system, just get the most capable CPU you can get
> within your sense of value. You'll notice the price premium differences
> when putting the system together.
>
> It's not as if there is a huge wealth of applications coded to fully utilize
> multi-core processors (someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't
> think so).
>
> Additionally, I know of no (mainstream) software written to take advantage
> of hyperthreading.
>
> So, no. You're not being silly imo.
>
>
> Stew
>
>

FWIW, the Intel Atom 330 CPU is dual-core with hyperthreading, so Windows has 4
threads going. At 1.6GHz per core, the Atom 330 is a mighty mite. (Not paid
for by Intel, who certainly would approve of this message)... Ben Myers

On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 14:14:05 +1030, "Fred" <> wrote:

>
>"Daddy" <> wrote in message
>news:gcobl6$nu6$...
>> See below.
>>
>> William R. Walsh wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>>> What really is the difference, if anything, between the current
>>>> generation of Intel quad core processors and a 'true' quad core?
>>>
>>> I think it can be summed up pretty easily. A true quad core processor
>>> would have four fully independent cores. Each one would contain
>>> everything needed to perform as a single CPU.
>>>
>>> You could think of a system with four single processors installed.
>>> Each processor there can function on its own.
>>>
>>> In reality, I *think* that some components (like the cache) are shared
>>> between cores.
>>>
>>>> Are today's Intel quad-cores a legitimate choice, or are they a
>>>> 'gimmick', like hyperthreading, something to satisfy the market's
>>>> demand while they work on the 'real deal'?
>>>
>>> Hyperthreading is not a gimmick per se...but it's not what it would
>>> appear to be from the outside world. A hyperthreaded processor tries
>>> to make use of functions in the CPU that would be idle while it is
>>> doing something else. It "looks" like a second processor is available,
>>> but that is not the case.
>>>
>>> The multi-core processors actually do have more than one CPU inside,
>>> but some things--possibly the cache--are shared between the CPUs.
>>> Software that can make use of multiple processors should also see a
>>> benefit from processors with multiple cores, since each one can be
>>> assigned to a different task.
>>>
>>> William
>>
>> Just about any currently available processor will blow smoke rings on my
>> P4, Stew. That's not what I'm getting at.
>>
>> By the word 'gimmick' I meant no disrespect. For example, hyperthreading
>> was 'sort of' like a dual core processor, but once real dual core
>> processors arrived nobody talked about hyperthreading any more, and
>> perhaps people who spent the extra money on a hyperthreaded processor
>> wished they would have waited a little longer for the 'genuine article' to
>> arrive.
>
>FYI hyper-threading technology was dropped for the existing core 2 range of
>processors but has returned with the upcoming core i7 processors.
>Nehalem will be four core processors implementing hyper-threading, so will
>be capable of simutaneously handling 8 threads. Handy for those users
>heavily into multi-tasking.
>Of course to take advantage of the newer processors a new motherboard and
>RAM will be required.
>Perhaps software vendors will write programs in the future that can take
>advantage of all those threads.
>
>"Intel Core i7 is a family of three Intel Desktop x86-64 processors. Core i7
>is the first Intel family to be released using the Intel Nehalem
>microarchitecture and is the successor to the Intel Core 2 family"
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_3
>
>
>> It's that situation I'm hoping to avoid. If I am going to justify spending
>> the extra bucks, I don't want 'sort of' a quad core processor if the real
>> thing is coming down the road. Instead, I'll buy a dual core now and make
>> my /next/ computer a 'real' quad core.
>>
>> Am I just being silly?
>
>Horses for courses. If you are into games a faster dual core processor
>usually beats a slower quad core.
>Some worstation type programs (video rendering, photoshop, etc) benefit from
>quad core.
>
>