I have been looking at notebook computers, and have noticed that appears to be the latest in power boosting, the dual core. Now I was wondering a few things about a dual core.
Firstly, If the description says 1.67 gHz dual core, is that the equivalent of having two 1.67 ghz processors, or two 800ish mHz processors?
Secondly, If I had the choice of getting a note book with a 2.2 gHz processor, or a 2 gHz dual core processor, all other specs are the same, which would be the better deal?
And lastly, for now, I understand that WinXP Pro is required when you have two processors, it this true?, and does it apply to dual core processors as well?

I've read a few articles from the google search. From what I understood from those articles, the speed of dual-core processors does not mean the sum of both processors, basically because there isn't two processors in it. Actually, there's only 1 processor which is able to handle multiple tasks in a single time slot. It simulates 2 processors in it. What is actually happening in it is that the task is splitted into multiple thread pipelines such that more jobs can be processed instead of having 1 pipeline in a single core processor. Tasks will have to wait for the one before to be completed before it gets processed. Hence single core processors takes longer time to process data.

It's like a human being having 1 brain, but now both left and right brains are working together simultaneously. Hence ultimately, there's only 1 brain. In dual-core processor, its just only 1 processor.

I might be wrong as I'm still new to multicore processing.

You may like to refer to these articles that I've read.
http://www.short-media.com/review.php?r=261
http://www.intel.com/technology/computing/dual-core/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicore

I am pretty sure you are right about the way a dual core processor works and that the speed given is roughly the total speed of the processors when they are run together or by themselves since it shouldnt make much of a difference. To answer moldboy's question about whether to get a 2.2 or 2 ghz processor it is up to you. It shouldnt really make much difference but in the long run (aka a year or 2) the 2.2 might perform better but it just depends on what you use your computer for. If you use it for gaming, i just would go with the 2.2 cause in the long run you will have a better chance of running new games. Finally, i have no clue about the WinXP Pro thing cause i have always used XP Pro so i just dont really know the differences. Try searching microsofts website.

mmm...and so what about the double core processor in powerbooks (from mac)... you mean that they are like lying?... cos it is not two processors but one?... which do you think can be better now, buying a mac with double core or a WinXp based laptop?

i heard that WinXp run better in a mac, one of the newest but who knows!...until we experiment it

If you're looking at Intels, a *slower* clock speed Core Duo notebook still runs faster than the same speed single core Pentium M, not to mention multitasking is much better on dual-cores. If you can afford it, it's the way to go.

For your first question: in the offer you'll only see 1,67ghz dual-core CPU. That means that every core of the two runs at 1,67ghz.
For your second question: Forthe long run I would go for the 2ghz dual-core one. The future means multitasking and you must be prepared for it. Not to mention the differeence of 200mhz between the CPU's can easy be achived by overclocking (you'll probably freeek out when you'll here thhis term but 200mhz won't increase the temperature very much).



Well I can't agree with you Inspiron. Yeah on the outside you won't see a difference between a single core CPU and a dual-core CPU, but on the inside there is a very big difference. There are 2 different CPUs. It does not simulate. There is a technology that simulates 2 CPUs (or 4 CPUs on the dual core ones) but that is called Hyper-Threading and it only comes with Intel Pentium 4 CPUs. So the dual core CPUs do have 2 separte CPUs inside. They even have their own cache memory. The only thing they have in common is the memory controller.
But the human brain example is very good until you say "In dual-core processor, its just only 1 processor". No there are 2 processors even thought on the outside it only looks like one.

So you're saying that a 1.67 dual core is mathmetacly (it's late I can't spell ) the same as a 3.3ghz?

Thats pretty much right! its just a little approximation as you could expect.

The other day I was browsing and came across a very good review about the pros / cons of dual and single core. To sum it up it is clear that if you are not a ***very*** avid gamer then dual core is best, but if you are going to be hardcore gaming then a fast single core tops it because of your style of using the computer. Dual core performs significantly better (than a processer of the same speed) if you are just using a few programs at once, multiple things at once like listening to music, burning a CD and browsing the net.

I play games quite a lot, and I find that it does improve very slightly when I play, although I tend to have music running in the background. This is compared to my other HP laptop as well that is single core...

SO, FOR ALL INTENSIVE PURPOSES DUAL CORE IS A GREAT IMPROVEMENT ... Hope this helped!

I'll try top find the article and post the link up on here...!

It seems like people are a bit mislead by the speed of a CPU. A dual core of say 2Ghz does not have the equivalent performance to a single core of 4Ghz. If you look at this article you can see various tests performed on a bunch of different chips: