The most significant event in 2005 in the field of microprocessors was the appearance on sale of CPUs with two cores. Moreover, the appearance on sale of dual-core processors happened very quickly, and without much difficulty. The biggest advantage of the new products was that the transition to a dual-core system did not require a platform change. In fact, any user of a modern computer could come to the store and change only one processor without changing the motherboard and the rest of the hardware. At the same time, the already installed operating system instantly detected the second core (the second processor appeared in the list of equipment), and no specific software settings were required (not to mention a complete reinstallation of the OS).

The idea of ​​appearance of such processors lies on the surface. The fact is that CPU manufacturers have almost reached the ceiling of increasing the performance of their products. In particular, AMD ran into a frequency of 2.4 GHz in the mass production of Athlon 64 processors. In fairness, we note that the best specimens are capable of operating at frequencies of 2.6-2.8 GHz, but they are carefully selected and put on sale under the Athlon FX brand (respectively, a model with 2.6GHz is labeled FX-55 and 2.8GHz is labeled FX-57). However, the output of such successful crystals is very small (this can be easily verified by overclocking 5-10 processors). The next jump in clock speed is possible with the transition to a thinner process technology, but this step is planned by AMD only for the end of this year (at best).

Intel has a worse situation: the NetBurst architecture turned out to be uncompetitive in terms of performance (max. frequency 3.8 GHz) and heat dissipation (~150 W). The change of focus and the development of a new architecture should take some time (even with a lot of developments from Intel). Therefore, for Intel, the release of dual-core processors is also a big step forward in terms of performance. In combination with a successful transition to 65 nm process technology, such processors will be able to compete on equal terms with AMD products.

The main initiator in the promotion of dual-core processors was AMD, which first introduced the corresponding Opteron. As for desktop processors, the initiative was seized by Intel, which announced Intel Pentium D and Intel Extreme Edition processors. And a few days later, the announcement of the line of Athlon64 X2 processors manufactured by AMD took place.

So, we start our review of dual-core processors with Athlon64 X2

AMD Athlon 64 X2 Processors

Initially, AMD announced the release of 4 processor models: 4200+, 4400+, 4600+ and 4800+ with clock speeds of 2.2-2.4 GHz and different L2 cache sizes. The price of processors is within the range from ~430$ to ~840$. As we can see, the general pricing policy does not look very friendly to the average user. Moreover, the cheapest dual-core Intel processor costs ~$260 (Pentium D 820 model). Therefore, to increase the attractiveness of the Athlon 64 X2, AMD is releasing the X2 3800+ with a clock speed of 2.0 GHz and L2 cache = 2x512Kb. The price for this processor starts at $340.

Since two cores (Toledo and Manchester) are used for the production of Athlon 64 X2 processors, for a better understanding, we summarize the characteristics of the processors in a table:

Name	Core stepping	Clock frequency	L2 cache size
X2 4800+	Toledo (E6)	2400MHz	2 x 1Mb
X2 4600+	Manchester (E4)	2400MHz	2 x 512Kb
X2 4400+	Toledo (E6)	2200MHz	2 x 1Mb
X2 4200+	Manchester (E4)	2200MHz	2 x 512Kb
X2 3800+	Manchester (E4)	2000MHz	2 x 512Kb

All processors have a cache memory of the first level of 128Kb, a nominal supply voltage (Vcore) of 1.35-1.4V, and the maximum heat dissipation does not exceed 110 watts. All of the above processors have the Socket939 form factor, use the HyperTransport = 1GHz bus (HT multiplier = 5) and are manufactured according to the 90nm process technology using SOI. By the way, it was the use of such a "thin" technical process that made it possible to achieve profitability in the production of dual-core processors. For example, the core of Toledo has an area of ​​199 square meters. mm., and the number of transistors reaches 233.2 million!

If you look at the appearance of the Athlon 64 X2 processor, it does not differ at all from other Socket 939 processors (Athlon 64 and Sempron).

It is worth noting that the Athlon X2 line of dual-core processors inherited from Athlon64 support for the following technologies: Cool "n" Quiet power saving function, AMD64 instruction set, SSE - SSE3, NX-bit information security function.

Like the Athlon64 processors, the Dual-Core Athlon X2 has a dual-channel DDR memory controller with a maximum bandwidth of 6.4 Gb/s. And if DDR400 bandwidth was sufficient for Athlon64, then for a processor with two cores this is a potential bottleneck that negatively affects performance. However, there won't be a serious drop in speed, since multi-core support was taken into account when developing the Athlon64 architecture. In particular, in the Athlon X2 processor, both cores are inside the same die; and the processor has one memory controller and one HyperTransport bus controller.

In any case, the memory bandwidth mismatch will be eliminated after the transition to Socket M2. Let me remind you that this will happen this year and the corresponding processors will have a DDR-II memory controller.

A few words about the compatibility of the new Athlon X2 processors. On all the latest motherboards tested, the top-end X2 4800+ processor worked without any problems. As a rule, these were boards based on nVidia nForce4 (Ultra & SLI) chipsets, as well as a board based on the ATI Xpress 200 CrossFire™ chipset (ECS KA1 MVP Extreme). When I installed this processor on the Epox 9NDA3+ (nVidia nForce3 Ultra) board, the second processor core was not detected by the operating system. And the firmware of the latest version of the BIOS did not correct the situation. But this is a special case, and in general, the statistics of the compatibility of dual-core processors with motherboards are very, very positive.

It would be appropriate to note here that the new dual-core processors do not have any specific requirements for the design of the motherboard power module. Moreover, the maximum heat dissipation of Athlon X2 processors is no higher than that of Athlon FX processors produced according to the 130 nm process technology (ie, slightly above 100W). At the same time, dual-core Intel processors consume almost one and a half times more energy.

Let's say a few words about overclocking

Of all AMD processors, only technical samples and processors of the FX line have an unlocked multiplier. And the dual-core Athlon X2, as well as the single-core Athlon 64 / Sempron, have a multiplier locked upwards. And in the direction of decreasing the multiplier is unlocked, since it is by lowering the multiplier that the Cool "n" Quiet energy saving technology works. And for overclocking the processor, we would like to have an unlocked multiplier in the direction of increase, so that all other components of the system would work in normal mode. But AMD followed in the footsteps of Intel and banned overclocking in this way from a certain point.

However, no one has yet canceled or banned overclocking by increasing HTT. But at the same time, we will have to choose high-quality memory, or use a down-scale memory frequency divider. In addition, it is necessary to reduce the HT bus multiplier, which, however, does not have any effect on the performance level.

So, using air cooling, we managed to overclock the Athlon X2 4800+ processor from the stock frequency of 2.4 GHz to 2.7 GHz. At the same time, the supply voltage (Vcore) was increased from 1.4V to 1.55V.

Overclocking statistics show that this instance showed not the worst increase in frequency. However, one cannot count on more, since AMD selects the most "successful" cores for the production of processors with a frequency of 2.6 GHz and 2.8 GHz

Intel Dual Core Processors

The first dual-core Intel processors were based on the Smithfield core, which is nothing more than two Prescott E0 stepping cores combined on a single die. The cores interact with each other through the system bus using a special arbiter. Accordingly, the crystal size reached 206 square meters. mm., and the number of transistors increased to 230 million.

It is interesting to consider how the HyperThreading technology is implemented in dual-core processors based on the Smithfield core. For example, Pentium D processors do not support this technology at all. Intel marketers felt that two "real" cores were enough for most users. But in the Pentium Extreme Edition 840 processor, it is enabled, and thanks to this, the processor can execute 4 instruction streams simultaneously. By the way, HyperThreading support is the only difference between Pentium Extreme Edition processor and Pentium D. All other functions and technologies are completely identical. Among them are support for the EM64T command set, EIST, C1E and TM2 power saving technologies, as well as the NX-bit information security function. As a result, the difference between Pentium D and Pentium EE processors is completely artificial.

Let's list the models of processors based on the Smithfield core. These are Pentium D with indices 820, 830 and 840 as well as Pentium Extreme Edition 840. All of them operate at a system bus frequency of 200 MHz (800QPB), are produced according to the 90nm process technology, have a nominal supply voltage (Vcore) of 1.25-1.388 V, maximum heat dissipation ~130 W (although according to some estimates, the heat dissipation of the EE 840 is at the level of 180 W).

To be honest, I did not find any positive aspects of processors based on the Smithfield core. The main complaint lies in the level of performance, when in many applications (which are not optimized for multithreading) dual-core Smithfield processors lose out to single-core Prescotts running at the same clock frequency. At the same time, AMD processors do not have such a situation. Obviously, the problem lies in the interaction of the cores via the processor bus (during the development of the Prescott core, performance scaling by increasing the number of cores was not provided). Perhaps for this reason, Intel decided to compensate for the shortcomings with a lower price. In particular, the price tag for the junior model Pentium D 820 was set at ~$260 (the cheapest Athlon X2 costs $340).

The first computer processors with multiple cores appeared on the consumer market back in the mid-2000s, but many users still do not quite understand what multi-core processors are and how to understand their characteristics.

Video format of the article "The whole truth about multi-core processors"

A simple explanation of the question "what is a processor"

The microprocessor is one of the main devices in a computer. This dry official name is often shortened to just "processor"). The processor is a microcircuit, comparable in area to a matchbox. If anything, the processor is like a motor in a car. The most important part, but not the only one. The car also has wheels, and a body, and a player with headlights. But it is the processor (like the motor of the car) that determines the power of the “machine”.

Many people call the processor a system unit - a “box” inside which all PC components are located, but this is fundamentally wrong. The system unit is a computer case along with all its constituent parts - a hard drive, RAM and many other details.

Processor Function - Calculations. It doesn't really matter which ones. The fact is that all the work of a computer is tied exclusively to arithmetic calculations. Addition, multiplication, subtraction and other algebra - this is all done by a microcircuit called a "processor". And the results of such calculations are displayed on the screen in the form of a game, a Word file, or just a desktop.

The main part of the computer that deals with calculations is here, what is a processor.

What is a processor core and multi-core

From the beginning of the processor "ages" these microcircuits were single-core. The core is, in fact, the processor itself. Its main and main part. Processors also have other parts - say, "legs" - contacts, microscopic "wiring" - but it is the block that is responsible for the calculations that is called processor core. When the processors became quite small, the engineers decided to combine several cores within one processor "case" at once.

If we imagine the processor as an apartment, then the core is a large room in such an apartment. A one-room apartment is one processor core (large room-hall), a kitchen, a bathroom, a corridor ... A two-room apartment is already like two processor cores along with other rooms. There are also three-, and four, and even 12-room apartments. Also in the case of processors: inside one crystal - "apartment" there can be several cores - "rooms".

Multi-core- this is the division of one processor into several identical functional blocks. The number of blocks is the number of cores within a single processor.

Varieties of multi-core processors

There is a misconception: “the more cores a processor has, the better.” This is how marketers who are paid to create these kinds of misconceptions try to present the case. Their task is to sell cheap processors, moreover, at a higher price and in huge quantities. But in fact, the number of cores is far from the main characteristic of processors.

Let's return to the analogy of processors and apartments. A two-room apartment is more expensive, more comfortable and more prestigious than a one-room apartment. But only if these apartments are located in the same area, they are equipped in the same way, and their renovation is similar. There are weak four-core (or even 6-core) processors that are much weaker than dual-core ones. But it’s hard to believe in it: still, the magic of large numbers 4 or 6 against “some” two. However, this is exactly what happens very, very often. It seems like the same four-room apartment, but in a dead state, without repair, in a completely remote area - and even at the price of a chic "kopeck piece" in the very center.

How many cores are there in a processor?

For personal computers and laptops, single-core processors have not really been produced for several years, and finding them on sale is a rarity. The number of cores starts with two. Four cores - as a rule, these are more expensive processors, but there is a return on them. There are also 6-core processors that are incredibly expensive and much less useful in practical terms. Few tasks can get a performance boost on these monstrous crystals.

There was an experiment by AMD to create 3-core processors, but this is already in the past. It turned out pretty well, but their time has passed.

By the way, AMD also produces multi-core processors, but, as a rule, they are noticeably weaker than competitors from Intel. True, and the price is much lower. You just need to know that 4 cores from AMD will almost always be noticeably weaker than the same 4 cores from Intel.

Now you know that processors have 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 12 cores. Single-core and 12-core processors are a rarity. Tri-core processors are a thing of the past. Six-core processors are either very expensive (Intel) or not strong enough (AMD) to overpay for the number. 2 and 4 cores are the most common and practical devices, from the weakest to the most powerful.

Frequency of multi-core processors

One of the characteristics of computer processors is their frequency. Those same megahertz (and more often gigahertz). Frequency is an important characteristic, but far from the only one.. Yes, perhaps not the most important. For example, a 2GHz dual-core processor is a more powerful offering than its 3GHz single-core counterpart.

It is completely wrong to assume that the frequency of the processor is equal to the frequency of its cores, multiplied by the number of cores. To put it simply, a 2-core processor with a core frequency of 2 GHz does not have a total frequency of 4 GHz in any case! Even the concept of "general frequency" does not exist. In this case, CPU frequency is exactly 2 GHz. No multiplications, additions or other operations.

And again, "turn" the processors into apartments. If the height of the ceilings in each room is 3 meters, then the total height of the apartment will remain the same - all the same three meters, and not a centimeter higher. No matter how many rooms there are in such an apartment, the height of these rooms does not change. Also clock frequency of processor cores. It doesn't add up or multiply.

Virtual multi-core, or Hyper-Threading

There are also virtual processor cores. Hyper-Threading technology in Intel processors makes the computer "think" that there are actually 4 cores inside a dual-core processor. Much like a single hard drive is divided into several logical- local drives C, D, E and so on.

Hyper-Threading is a very useful technology in a number of tasks.. Sometimes it happens that the processor core is only half used, and the rest of the transistors in its composition are idle. Engineers figured out a way to make these idlers work too by dividing each physical processor core into two "virtual" parts. As if a fairly large room was divided into two by a partition.

Does it make practical sense virtual core trick? Most often - yes, although it all depends on the specific tasks. It seems that there are more rooms (and most importantly, they are used more rationally), but the area of ​​\u200b\u200bthe room has not changed. In offices, such partitions are incredibly useful, in some residential apartments - too. In other cases, partitioning the room (dividing the processor core into two virtual ones) makes no sense at all.

Note that the most expensive performance class processorsCorei7 are without fail equippedHyper-threading. They have 4 physical cores and 8 virtual ones. It turns out that 8 computational threads work simultaneously on one processor. Less expensive but also powerful Intel class processors Corei5 consist of four cores, but Hyper Threading does not work there. It turns out that Core i5 work with 4 computation threads.

Processors Corei3- typical "middle peasants", both in price and performance. They have two cores and no hint of Hyper-Threading. In total, it turns out that Corei3 only two computational threads. The same applies to frankly budget crystals. Pentium andCeleron. Two cores, no "hype-threading" = two threads.

Does a computer need many cores? How many cores do you need in a processor?

All modern processors are powerful enough for common tasks.. Browsing the Internet, chatting in social networks and e-mail, Word-PowerPoint-Excel office tasks: weak Atom, budget Celeron and Pentium are suitable for this work, not to mention the more powerful Core i3. Two cores are more than enough for normal work. A processor with a large number of cores will not bring a significant increase in speed.

For games, you should pay attention to the processorsCorei3 ori5. Rather, gaming performance will depend not on the processor, but on the video card. It's rare that a game will need all the power of the Core i7. Therefore, it is believed that games require no more than four processor cores, and more often two cores will do.

For serious work like special engineering programs, video encoding and other resource-intensive tasks really productive equipment is required. Often, not only physical, but also virtual processor cores are involved here. The more computing threads, the better. And it doesn't matter how much such a processor costs: for professionals, the price is not so important.

Is there any benefit to multi-core processors?

Certainly yes. At the same time, the computer is engaged in several tasks - at least the operation of Windows (by the way, these are hundreds of different tasks) and, at the same moment, playing a movie. Playing music and browsing the Internet. The work of a text editor and the included music. Two processor cores - and these are, in fact, two processors, will cope with different tasks faster than one. Two cores will make it somewhat faster. Four is even faster than two.

In the early years of the existence of multi-core technology, not all programs were able to work even with two processor cores. By 2014, the vast majority of applications are well aware of and able to take advantage of multiple cores. The speed of processing tasks on a dual-core processor is rarely doubled, but there is almost always a performance boost.

Therefore, the rooted myth that supposedly programs cannot use multiple cores is outdated information. Once upon a time it was true, today the situation has improved dramatically. The benefits of multiple cores are undeniable, that's a fact.

When the processor has fewer cores, it's better

You should not buy a processor with the wrong formula "the more cores, the better." This is not true. Firstly, 4, 6 and 8-core processors are noticeably more expensive than their dual-core counterparts. A significant increase in price is not always justified in terms of performance. For example, if an 8-core processor is only 10% faster than a CPU with fewer cores, but will be 2 times more expensive, then such a purchase is difficult to justify.

Secondly, the more cores a processor has, the more “gluttonous” it is in terms of power consumption. It makes no sense to buy a much more expensive laptop with a 4-core (8-thread) Core i7 if this laptop will only process text files, browse the Internet, and so on. There will be no difference with the dual-core (4 threads) Core i5, and the classic Core i3 with only two computing threads will not yield to the more eminent "colleague". And from a battery, such a powerful laptop will work much less than an economical and undemanding Core i3.

Multi-core processors in mobile phones and tablets

The fashion for several computing cores within one processor also applies to mobile devices. Smartphones, along with tablets with a large number of cores, almost never use the full capabilities of their microprocessors. Dual-core mobile computers sometimes really work a little faster, but 4, and even more so 8 cores, are overkill. The battery is consumed completely godlessly, and powerful computing devices are simply idle. The conclusion is that multi-core processors in phones, smartphones and tablets are just a tribute to marketing, and not an urgent need. Computers are more demanding devices than phones. They really need two processor cores. Four won't hurt. 6 and 8 are overkill in normal tasks and even in games.

How to choose a multi-core processor and not make a mistake?

The practical part of today's article is relevant for 2014. It is unlikely that anything will change in the coming years. We will only talk about processors manufactured by Intel. Yes, AMD offers good solutions, but they are less popular, and it is more difficult to understand them.

Note that the table is based on 2012-2014 sample processors. Older samples have different characteristics. Also, we did not mention rare variants of the CPU, for example, the single-core Celeron (there are some even today, but this is an atypical variant that is almost not represented on the market). You should not choose processors solely on the number of cores inside them - there are other, more important characteristics. The table will only make it easier to choose a multi-core processor, but a specific model (and there are dozens of them in each class) should be bought only after carefully familiarizing yourself with their parameters: frequency, heat dissipation, generation, cache size and other characteristics.

CPU	Number of Cores	Computing Threads	Typical Application
atom	1-2	1-4	Low power computers and netbooks. The task of Atom processors is the minimum power consumption. Their productivity is minimal.
Celeron	2	2	The cheapest processors for desktop PCs and laptops. The performance is sufficient for office tasks, but these are not gaming CPUs at all.
Pentium	2	2	Just as inexpensive and low-performance Intel processors as Celeron. An excellent choice for office computers. Pentiums are equipped with a slightly larger cache, and sometimes slightly improved performance compared to Celeron
Core i3	2	4	Two fairly powerful cores, each of which is divided into two virtual "processors" (Hyper-Threading). These are already quite powerful CPUs at not too high prices. A good choice for a home or powerful office computer without much performance requirements.
Core i5	4	4	Full-fledged 4-core Core i5s are quite expensive processors. Their performance is lacking only in the most demanding tasks.
Core i7	4-6	8-12	The most powerful but especially expensive Intel processors. As a rule, they are rarely faster than Core i5, and only in some programs. They simply have no alternatives.

A brief summary of the article "The whole truth about multi-core processors." Instead of an outline

• Processor core is its integral part. In fact, an independent processor inside the case. A dual-core processor is two processors inside one.
• Multi-core comparable to the number of rooms in an apartment. Two-room apartments are better than one-room apartments, but only with other things being equal (location of the apartment, condition, area, ceiling height).
• The assertion that The more cores a processor has, the better it is.- a marketing ploy, a completely wrong rule. After all, an apartment is chosen not only by the number of rooms, but also by its location, repair and other parameters. The same applies to several cores inside the processor.
• Exists "virtual" multi-core- Hyper-threading technology. Thanks to this technology, each "physical" core is divided into two "virtual" cores. It turns out that a 2-core processor with Hyper-Threading has only two real cores, but these processors simultaneously process 4 computational threads. This is a really useful feature, but a 4-thread processor cannot be considered a quad-core processor.
• For Intel desktop processors: Celeron - 2 cores and 2 threads. Pentium - 2 cores, 2 threads. Core i3 - 2 cores, 4 threads. Core i5 - 4 cores, 4 threads. Core i7 - 4 cores, 8 threads. Laptop (mobile) Intel CPUs have a different number of cores/threads.
• For mobile computers, energy efficiency (in practice, battery life) is often more important than the number of cores.

Introduction

Getting started with dual-core desktop processors. In this review, you will find everything about AMD's dual-core processor: general information, performance testing, overclocking, and power and thermal information.

The time for dual-core processors has come. In the very near future, processors equipped with two computing cores will begin to actively penetrate desktop computers. By the end of next year, most new PCs should be based on dual-core CPUs.
Such a strong desire of manufacturers to introduce dual-core architectures is explained by the fact that other methods for increasing productivity have already exhausted themselves. Increasing clock frequencies is very difficult, and increasing the bus speed and cache size does not lead to a noticeable result.
At the same time, the improvement of the 90 nm process technology has reached the point where the production of giant crystals with an area of ​​about 200 square meters. mm became profitable. It was this fact that made it possible for CPU manufacturers to launch a campaign to introduce dual-core architectures.

So, today, May 9, 2005, following Intel, AMD also presents its dual-core processors for desktop systems. However, as in the case of dual-core Smithfield processors (Intel Pentium D and Intel Extreme Edition), we are not talking about the start of deliveries yet, they will begin a little later. At the moment, AMD gives us the opportunity to only preview its promising proposals.
AMD's line of dual-core processors is called the Athlon 64 X2. This name reflects both the fact that the new dual-core CPUs have the AMD64 architecture, and the fact that they have two processing cores. Along with the name, desktop processors with two cores received their own logo:


The Athlon 64 X2 family will include four processors rated 4200+, 4400+, 4600+, and 4800+ at the time of its release. These processors will be available for $500 to $1,000 depending on their performance. That is, AMD puts its line of Athlon 64 X2 somewhat higher than the usual Athlon 64.
However, before we start judging the consumer qualities of the new CPUs, let's take a closer look at the features of these processors.

Athlon 64 X2 architecture

It should be noted that the implementation of dual-core in AMD processors is somewhat different from the implementation of Intel. Although, like the Pentium D and Pentium Extreme Edition, the Athlon 64 X2 is essentially two Athlon 64 processors combined on a single chip, AMD's dual-core processor offers a slightly different way for the cores to interact with each other.
The fact is that Intel's approach is to simply place two Prescott cores on one chip. With such an organization of dual-core, the processor does not have any special mechanisms for the implementation of interaction between the cores. That is, as in conventional two-processor Xeon-based systems, the cores in Smithfield communicate (for example, to solve problems with cache coherence) via the system bus. Accordingly, the system bus is shared between the processor cores and when working with memory, which leads to an increase in delays when accessing the memory of both cores simultaneously.
AMD engineers foresaw the possibility of creating multi-core processors at the design stage of the AMD64 architecture. Thanks to this, some bottlenecks were overcome in the dual-core Athlon 64 X2. First, not all resources are duplicated in the new AMD processors. Although each of the Athlon 64 X2 cores has its own set of execution units and a dedicated L2 cache, the memory controller and Hyper-Transport bus controller for both cores are the same. The interaction of each of the cores with shared resources is carried out through a special Crossbar switch and a System Request Queue. The interaction of the cores with each other is also organized at the same level, thanks to which the issues of cache coherence are solved without additional load on the system bus and the memory bus.

Thus, the only bottleneck in the Athlon 64 X2 architecture is the bandwidth of the 6.4 GB per second memory subsystem, which is shared among the processor cores. However, next year AMD plans to switch to using faster types of memory, in particular dual-channel DDR2-667 SDRAM. This step should have a positive effect on increasing the performance of dual-core CPUs.
The lack of support for modern high-bandwidth memory types in the new dual-core processors is due to the fact that AMD primarily wanted to keep the Athlon 64 X2 compatible with existing platforms. As a result, these processors can be used in the same motherboards as regular Athlon 64s. Therefore, Athlon 64 X2s feature a Socket 939 package, a dual-channel memory controller with DDR400 SDRAM support, and work with the HyperTransport bus at up to 1 GHz. Because of this, the only thing required to support dual-core CPUs from AMD in modern Socket 939 motherboards is a BIOS update. In this regard, it should be noted separately that, fortunately, AMD engineers managed to fit the power consumption of Athlon 64 X2 into the previously established framework.

Thus, in terms of compatibility with the existing infrastructure, dual-core processors from AMD turned out to be better than competing Intel products. Smithfield is only compatible with the new i955X and NVIDIA nFroce4 (Intel Edition) chipsets, and also places higher demands on the motherboard's power converter.
Athlon 64 X2 processors are based on cores codenamed Toledo and Manchester stepping E, that is, in terms of functionality (except for the possibility of processing two computational threads at the same time), the new CPUs are similar to Athlon 64 based on San Diego and Venice cores. So, Athlon 64 X2 support the SSE3 instruction set, and also have an improved memory controller. Among the features of the Athlon 64 X2 memory controller, we should mention the ability to use different DIMMs in different channels (up to installing modules of different sizes in both memory channels) and the ability to work with four double-sided DIMMs in DDR400 mode.
The Athlon 64 X2 (Toledo) processors, containing two cores with 1 MB L2 cache for each core, consist of about 233.2 million transistors and have an area of ​​about 199 square meters. mm. Thus, as expected, the die and complexity of a dual-core processor is about twice that of a corresponding single-core processor.

Athlon 64 X2 line

The Athlon 64 X2 processor line includes four CPU models rated 4800+, 4600+, 4400+ and 4200+. They can be based on cores with the code names Toledo and Manchester. The differences between them are in the size of the L2 cache. Processors codenamed Toledo, rated 4800+ and 4400+, have two 1MB L2 caches (per core). CPUs with the code name Manchester have half the amount of cache memory: two times 512 KB each.
The frequencies of AMD dual-core processors are quite high and equal to 2.2 or 2.4 GHz. That is, the clock speed of AMD's top dual-core processor is the same as that of the top processor in the Athlon 64 line. This means that even in applications that do not support multithreading, the Athlon 64 X2 will be able to demonstrate a very good level of performance.
As for the electrical and thermal characteristics, despite the rather high frequencies of Athlon 64 X2, they differ little from the corresponding characteristics of single-core CPUs. The maximum heat dissipation of the new processors with two cores is 110 W against 89 W for conventional Athlon 64, and the supply current has increased to 80A against 57.4A. However, if we compare the electrical characteristics of Athlon 64 X2 with the specifications of Athlon 64 FX-55, then the increase in maximum heat dissipation will be only 6W, and the maximum current will not change at all. Thus, we can say that Athlon 64 X2 processors have almost the same requirements for the motherboard power converter as Athlon 64 FX-55.

The overall characteristics of the Athlon 64 X2 processor line are as follows:

It should be noted that AMD is positioning Athlon 64 X2 as a completely independent line that meets its goals. The processors of this family are intended for the group of advanced users who value the ability to use several resource-intensive applications simultaneously, or who use applications for digital content creation in their daily work, most of which effectively support multi-threading. That is, Athlon 64 X2 seems to be a kind of analogue of Athlon 64 FX, but not for gamers, but for enthusiasts who use a PC for work.

At the same time, the release of Athlon 64 X2 does not cancel the existence of other lines: Athlon 64 FX, Athlon 64 and Sempron. All of them will continue to coexist peacefully in the market.
But, we should separately note the fact that the Athlon 64 X2 and Athlon 64 lines have a unified rating system. This means that Athlon 64 processors with ratings above 4000+ will not appear on the market. At the same time, the Athlon 64 FX family of single-core processors will continue to evolve as gamers demand these CPUs.
The prices of Athlon 64 X2 are such that, judging by them, this line can be considered a further development of the usual Athlon 64. In fact, it is so. As the older Athlon 64 models move into the middle price category, the top models in this line will be replaced by the Athlon 64 X2.
Athlon 64 X2 processors are expected to be available in June. AMD's suggested retail prices are as follows:

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ - $1001;
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ - $803;
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ - $581;
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ - $537.

Athlon 64 X2 4800+: first acquaintance

We managed to get a sample of the AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ processor for testing, which is the top model in the line of dual-core CPUs from AMD. This processor in its appearance turned out to be very similar to its forefathers. In fact, it differs from the usual Athlon 64 FX and Athlon 64 for Socket 939 only by the markings.

Although the Athlon 64 X2 is a typical Socket 939 processor that should be compatible with most motherboards with a 939-pin processor socket, at the moment it is difficult to work with many motherboards due to the lack of necessary support from the BIOS. The only motherboard on which this CPU was able to work in dual-core mode in our laboratory turned out to be ASUS A8N SLI Deluxe, for which there is a special technological BIOS supporting Athlon 64 X2. However, it is obvious that with the advent of AMD dual-core processors on the market, this shortcoming will be eliminated.
It should be noted that without the necessary support from the BIOS, Athlon 64 X2 in any motherboard works perfectly in single-core mode. That is, without the updated firmware, our Athlon 64 X2 4800+ worked like an Athlon 64 4000+.
The popular CPU-Z utility still gives incomplete information about the Athlon 64 X2, although it recognizes it:

Even though CPU-Z detects two cores, all displayed cache information refers to only one of the CPU cores.
Anticipating the performance tests of the resulting processor, we first of all decided to investigate its thermal and electrical characteristics. To begin with, we compared the temperatures of Athlon 64 X2 4800+ with those of other Socket 939 processors. For these experiments, we used a single air cooler AVC Z7U7414001; The processors were warmed up using the S&M 1.6.0 utility, which turned out to be compatible with the dual-core Athlon 64 X2.

At rest, the temperature of Athlon 64 X2 is somewhat higher than that of Athlon 64 processors based on the Venice core. However, despite having two cores, this CPU is not hotter than single-core processors manufactured using the 130nm process technology. Moreover, the same picture is observed at maximum CPU load. The temperature of the Athlon 64 X2 at 100% load is lower than the temperature of the Athlon 64 and Athlon 64 FX, which use 130 nm cores. Thus, thanks to the reduced supply voltage and the use of the revision E core, AMD engineers really managed to achieve acceptable heat dissipation for their dual-core processors.
When examining the power consumption of Athlon 64 X2, we decided to compare it not only with the corresponding characteristic of single-core Socket 939 CPUs, but also with the power consumption of older Intel processors.

Surprising as it may seem, the power consumption of the Athlon 64 X2 4800+ is lower than that of the Athlon 64 FX-55. This is explained by the fact that the Athlon 64 FX-55 is based on the old 130 nm core, so there is nothing strange in this. The main conclusion is different: those motherboards that were compatible with the Athlon 64 FX-55 are capable (in terms of power converter power) of supporting the new AMD dual-core processors. That is, AMD is absolutely right when it says that all the infrastructure necessary for the implementation of Athlon 64 X2 is almost ready.

Naturally, we didn't miss the opportunity to test the overclocking potential of Athlon 64 X2 4800+. Unfortunately, the technology BIOS for ASUS A8N-SLI Deluxe, which supports Athlon 64 X2, does not allow changing either the CPU voltage or its multiplier. Therefore, overclocking experiments were performed at the nominal voltage for the processor by increasing the frequency of the clock generator.
In the course of experiments, we managed to increase the frequency of the clock generator to 225 MHz, while the processor continued to maintain the ability to function stably. That is, as a result of overclocking, we managed to increase the frequency of the new dual-core CPU from AMD to 2.7 GHz.

So, when overclocking, the Athlon 64 X2 4800+ allowed us to increase its frequency by 12.5%, which, in our opinion, is not so bad for a dual-core CPU. At least, we can say that the frequency potential of the Toledo core is close to the potential of other revision E cores: San Diego, Venice and Palermo. So the result achieved during overclocking gives us hope for the appearance of even faster processors in the Athlon 64 X2 family before the introduction of the next technological process.

How We Tested

As part of this test, we compared the performance of a dual-core Athlon 64 X2 4800+ processor with the performance of older single-core processors. That is, the Athlon 64 X2 was competed with the Athlon 64, Athlon 64 FX, Pentium 4 and Pentium 4 Extreme Edition.
Unfortunately, today we cannot present a comparison of the new dual-core processor from AMD with a competing solution from Intel, the CPU codenamed Smithfield. However, in the very near future our test results will be supplemented by the results of Pentium D and Pentium Extreme Edition, so stay tuned.
In the meantime, several systems took part in testing, which consisted of the following set of components:

Processors:

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ (Socket 939, 2.4 GHz, 2 x 1024KB L2, core revision E6 - Toledo);
AMD Athlon 64 FX-55 (Socket 939, 2.6 GHz, 1024KB L2, CG core revision - Clawhammer);
AMD Athlon 64 4000+ (Socket 939, 2.4 GHz, 1024KB L2, CG core revision - Clawhammer);
AMD Athlon 64 3800+ (Socket 939, 2.4 GHz, 512KB L2, core revision E3 - Venice);
Intel Pentium 4 Extreme Edition 3.73 GHz (LGA775, 3.73 GHz, 2MB L2);
Intel Pentium 4 660 (LGA775, 3.6 GHz, 2MB L2);
Intel Pentium 4 570 (LGA775, 3.8 GHz, 1MB L2);

Motherboards:

ASUS A8N SLI Deluxe (Socket 939, NVIDIA nForce4 SLI);
NVIDIA C19 CRB Demo Board (LGA775, nForce4 SLI (Intel Edition)).

Memory:

1024MB DDR400 SDRAM (Corsair CMX512-3200XLPRO, 2 x 512MB, 2-2-2-10);
1024MB DDR2-667 SDRAM (Corsair CM2X512A-5400UL, 2 x 512MB, 4-4-4-12).

Graphic card:- PowerColor RADEON X800 XT (PCI-E x16).
Disk subsystem:- Maxtor MaXLine III 250GB (SATA150).
Operating system:- Microsoft Windows XP SP2.

Performance

Office work

To study performance in office applications, we used the SYSmark 2004 and Business Winstone 2004 benchmarks.

The Business Winstone 2004 benchmark simulates the user experience in common applications: Microsoft Access 2002, Microsoft Excel 2002, Microsoft FrontPage 2002, Microsoft Outlook 2002, Microsoft PowerPoint 2002, Microsoft Project 2002, Microsoft Word 2002, Norton AntiVirus Professional Edition 2003, and WinZip 8.1. The result obtained is quite natural: all these applications do not use multithreading, and therefore Athlon 64 X2 is only slightly faster than its single-core analogue Athlon 64 4000+. The small advantage is due to the improved memory controller of the Toledo core rather than the presence of a second core.
However, in everyday office work, often several applications work simultaneously. How effective AMD dual-core processors are in this case is shown below.

In this case, the speed of work in Microsoft Outlook and Internet Explorer is measured, while files are being copied in the background. However, as the diagram above shows, copying files is not such a difficult task and the dual-core architecture does not give any advantage here.

This test is somewhat more difficult. Here, in the background, files are archived using Winzip, while in the foreground the user works in Excel and Word. And in this case, we get quite a tangible dividend from dual-core. The Athlon 64 X2 4800+ running at 2.4 GHz outperforms not only the Athlon 64 4000+, but also the single-core Athlon 64 FX-55 running at 2.6 GHz.

As the tasks running in the background become more complex, the charms of the dual-core architecture begin to manifest themselves more and more. In this case, the user's work is simulated in Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Project, Microsoft Access, Microsoft PowerPoint, Microsoft FrontPage, and WinZip applications, while anti-virus scanning takes place in the background. In this test, running applications are able to properly load both Athlon 64 X2 cores, and the result is not long in coming. A dual-core processor solves tasks one and a half times faster than a similar single-core processor.

This simulates a user experience receiving an email in Outlook 2002 that contains a set of documents in a zip archive. While received files are being scanned for viruses using VirusScan 7.0, the user is browsing e-mail and making notes in the Outlook calendar. The user then browses the corporate website and some documents using Internet Explorer 6.0.
This model of user experience provides for the use of multithreading, so Athlon 64 X2 4800+ demonstrates higher performance than single-core processors from AMD and Intel. Note that Pentium 4 processors with Hyper-Threading "virtual" multithreading technology cannot boast of such high performance as Athlon 64 X2, which has two real independent processor cores.

In this benchmark, a hypothetical user edits text in Word 2002 and also uses Dragon NaturallySpeaking 6 to convert an audio file into a text document. The finished document is converted to pdf format using Acrobat 5.0.5. Then, using the generated document, a presentation is created in PowerPoint 2002. And in this case, Athlon 64 X2 is again on top.

Here the work model is as follows: the user opens the database in Access 2002 and executes a series of queries. Documents are archived using WinZip 8.1. Query results are exported to Excel 2002 and a chart is built based on them. Although in this case the positive effect of dual-core is also present, the processors of the Pentium 4 family cope with this work somewhat faster.
In general, the following can be said about the justification for using dual-core processors in office applications. By themselves, these types of applications are rarely optimized for multi-threaded workloads. Therefore, it is difficult to get a gain when working in one particular application on a dual-core processor. However, if the work model is such that some of the resource-intensive tasks are performed in the background, then processors with two cores can give a very noticeable increase in performance.

Creation of digital content

In this section, we will again use the SYSmark 2004 and Multimedia Content Creation Winstone 2004 benchmarks.

The benchmark simulates work in the following applications: Adobe Photoshop 7.0.1, Adobe Premiere 6.50, Macromedia Director MX 9.0, Macromedia Dreamweaver MX 6.1, Microsoft Windows Media Encoder 9 Version 9.00.00.2980, NewTek LightWave 3D 7.5b, Steinberg WaveLab 4.0f. Since most applications for creating and processing digital content support multithreading, the success of the Athlon 64 X2 4800+ in this test is not surprising at all. Moreover, we note that the advantage of this dual-core CPU is manifested even when parallel operation in several applications is not used.

When several applications are running simultaneously, dual-core processors can show even more impressive results. For example, in this test in the 3ds max 5.1 package, an image is rendered to a bmp file, and at the same time, the user is preparing web pages in Dreamweaver MX. The user then renders a 3D animation in vector graphics format.

In this case, the work in Premiere 6.5 of a user who creates a video clip from several other clips in raw format and individual audio tracks is simulated. While waiting for the end of the operation, the user also prepares an image in Photoshop 7.01, modifying the existing image and saving it to disk. Once the video is completed, the user edits it and adds special effects in After Effects 5.5.
And again we see a huge advantage of AMD's dual-core architecture both over the usual Athlon 64 and Athlon 64 FX, and over the Pentium 4 with Hyper-Threading "virtual" multi-core technology.

And here is another manifestation of the triumph of AMD's dual-core architecture. Its reasons are the same as in the previous case. They lie in the model of work used. Here, a hypothetical user unzips a website's content from a zip file while using Flash MX to open an exported 3D vector graphic. The user then modifies it by including other pictures and optimizes it for faster animation. The resulting special effects video is compressed using Windows Media Encoder 9 for broadcast over the Internet. The resulting website is then built in Dreamweaver MX, and in parallel the system is scanned for viruses using VirusScan 7.0.
Thus, it must be recognized that for applications that work with digital content, a dual-core architecture is very beneficial. Almost any task of this type can efficiently load both CPU cores at the same time, which leads to a strong increase in the speed of the system.

PCMark04, 3DMark 2001SE, 3DMark05

Separately, we decided to look at the speed of the Athlon 64 X2 in popular synthetic benchmarks from FutureMark.

As we have noted many times before, PCMark04 is optimized for multi-threaded systems. That is why Pentium 4 processors with Hyper-Threading technology showed better results in it than Athlon 64 family CPUs. However, now the situation has changed. Two real cores in the Athlon 64 X2 4800+ put this processor at the top of the chart.

Graphic tests of the 3DMark family do not support multithreading in any form. Therefore, the results of Athlon 64 X2 here differ little from the results of regular Athlon 64 clocked at 2.4 GHz. A small advantage over Athlon 64 4000+ is due to the presence of an improved memory controller in the Toledo core, and a large amount of cache memory over Athlon 64 3800+.
However, 3DMark05 has a couple of tests that can use multithreading. These are CPU tests. In these benchmarks, the CPU is responsible for the software emulation of vertex shaders, and, in addition, the second thread calculates the physics of the game environment.

The results are quite natural. If the application is able to use two cores, then dual-core processors are much faster than single-core ones.

Gaming Applications

Unfortunately, modern gaming applications do not support multithreading. Despite the fact that the technology of "virtual" multi-core Hyper-Threading appeared a long time ago, game developers are in no hurry to divide the calculations performed by the game engine into several threads. And the point, most likely, is not that it is difficult to do this for games. Apparently, the growth of the computing capabilities of the processor for games is not so important, since the main load in tasks of this type falls on the video card.
However, the appearance of dual-core CPUs on the market gives some hope that game manufacturers will load the central processor more heavily with calculations. The result of this may be the emergence of a new generation of games with advanced artificial intelligence and realistic physics.

So far, there is no point in using dual-core CPUs in gaming systems. Therefore, by the way, AMD is not going to stop developing its line of processors specifically aimed at gamers, Athlon 64 FX. These processors are characterized by higher frequencies and the presence of a single computing core.

Information compression

Unfortunately, WinRAR does not support multi-threading, so the result of Athlon 64 X2 4800+ is almost the same as the result of a regular Athlon 64 4000+.

However, there are archivers that can effectively use dual-core. For example, 7zip. When tested in it, the results of Athlon 64 X2 4800+ fully justify the cost of this processor.

Audio and video encoding

The popular mp3 codec Lame did not support multithreading until recently. However, the newly appeared version 3.97 alpha 2 corrected this shortcoming. As a result, Pentium 4 processors began to encode audio faster than Athlon 64, and Athlon 64 X2 4800+, although outperforming its single-core counterparts, still lags behind the older models of the Pentium 4 and Pentium 4 Extreme Edition families.

Although the Mainconcept codec can use two processing cores, the speed of the Athlon 64 X2 is not much higher than that of its single-core brothers. Moreover, this advantage is partly due not only to the dual-core architecture, but also to support for SSE3 commands, as well as an improved memory controller. As a result, single-core Pentium 4s in Mainconcept are noticeably faster than Athlon 64 X2 4800+.

When encoding MPEG-4 with the popular DiVX codec, the picture is completely different. Athlon 64 X2, thanks to the presence of the second core, gets a good increase in speed, which allows it to outperform even older Pentium 4 models.

The XviD codec also supports multi-threading, but adding a second core in this case gives a much smaller increase in speed than in the DiVX episode.

Obviously, of the codecs, Windows Media Encoder is the best optimized for multi-core architectures. For example, the Athlon 64 X2 4800+ handles encoding with this codec 1.7 times faster than a single-core Athlon 64 4000+ running at the same clock speed. As a result, it makes no sense to talk about any kind of rivalry between single-core and dual-core processors in WME.
Like applications for processing digital content, the vast majority of codecs have long been optimized for Hyper-Threading. As a result, dual-core processors, which allow two computational threads to run simultaneously, perform encoding faster than single-core ones. That is, the use of systems with a CPU with two cores for encoding audio and video content is fully justified.

Image and video editing

Adobe's popular video and image editing products are highly optimized for multiprocessor systems and Hyper-Threading. Therefore, in Photoshop, After Effects and Premiere, AMD's dual-core processor demonstrates extremely high performance, significantly exceeding the performance of not only the Athlon 64 FX-55, but also the faster Pentium 4 processors in this class.

Text recognising

ABBYY Finereader, a fairly popular OCR program, although it is optimized for processors with Hyper-Threading technology, works on Athlon 64 X2 with only one thread. There is a mistake of programmers who detect the possibility of parallelization of calculations by the name of the processor.
Unfortunately, similar examples of bad programming still occur today. Let's hope that today the number of applications like ABBYY Finereader is minimal, and in the near future their number will be reduced to zero.

Mathematical calculations

Strange as it may seem, the popular mathematical packages MATLAB and Mathematica do not support multithreading in the version for the Windows XP operating system. Therefore, in these tasks Athlon 64 X2 4800+ performs approximately on the same level as Athlon 64 4000+, outperforming it only due to a better optimized memory controller.

On the other hand, many problems of mathematical modeling make it possible to organize parallelization of calculations, which gives a good performance boost in the case of using dual-core CPUs. This is confirmed by the ScienceMark test.

3D rendering

Final rendering is one of the tasks that can be easily and efficiently parallelized. Therefore, it is not at all surprising that the use of an Athlon 64 X2 processor equipped with two processing cores when working in 3ds max allows you to get a very good increase in performance.

A similar picture is observed in Lightwave. Thus, the use of dual-core processors in the final rendering is no less beneficial than in applications for image and video processing.

General impressions

Before formulating general conclusions based on the results of our testing, a few words should be said about what was left behind the scenes. Namely, about the comfort of using systems equipped with dual-core processors. The fact is that in a system with one single-core processor, for example, Athlon 64, only one computational thread can be executed at a time. This means that if several applications are running simultaneously in the system, then the OC scheduler is forced to switch processor resources between tasks with great frequency.

Due to the fact that modern processors are very fast, switching between tasks usually remains invisible to the user. However, there are also applications that are difficult to interrupt to transfer processor time to other tasks in the queue. In this case, the operating system starts to slow down, which often irritates the person sitting at the computer. Also, it is often possible to observe a situation when an application, having taken away processor resources, “freezes”, and such an application can be very difficult to remove from execution, since it does not give processor resources even to the operating system scheduler.

Similar problems occur in systems equipped with dual-core processors, an order of magnitude less often. The fact is that processors with two cores are capable of simultaneously executing two computational threads, respectively, for the functioning of the scheduler, there are twice as many free resources that can be divided between running applications. In fact, in order for a system with a dual-core processor to become uncomfortable, it is necessary to simultaneously intersect two processes trying to seize all CPU resources for undivided use.

In conclusion, we decided to conduct a small experiment showing how the performance of a system with a single-core and dual-core processor affects the performance of a large number of resource-intensive applications in parallel. To do this, we measured the number of fps in Half-Life 2 by running several copies of the WinRAR archiver in the background.

As you can see, when using the Athlon 64 X2 4800+ processor in the system, the performance in Half-Life 2 remains at an acceptable level much longer than in a system with a single-core, but higher-frequency Athlon 64 FX-55 processor. In fact, on a system with a single-core processor, running one background application already results in a twofold drop in speed. With a further increase in the number of tasks running in the background, performance drops to an indecent level.
On a system with a dual-core processor, it is possible to maintain high performance of an application running in the foreground for much longer. Running a single copy of WinRAR goes almost unnoticed, adding more background applications, while affecting the foreground task, results in much less performance degradation. It should be noted that the drop in speed in this case is caused not so much by the lack of processor resources, but by the division of the limited bandwidth memory bus between running applications. That is, if background tasks do not actively use memory, the foreground application is unlikely to react strongly to an increase in the background load.

conclusions

Today we have our first acquaintance with dual-core processors from AMD. As the tests have shown, the idea of ​​combining two cores in one processor has demonstrated its viability in practice.
The use of dual-core processors in desktop systems can significantly increase the speed of a number of applications that effectively use multithreading. Due to the fact that the technology of virtual multithreading, Hyper-Threading has been present in the Pentium 4 processor family for a very long time, software developers now offer a fairly large number of programs that can benefit from a dual-core CPU architecture. Thus, among the applications, the speed of which will be increased on dual-core processors, it should be noted utilities for encoding video and audio, 3D modeling and rendering systems, photo and video editing programs, as well as professional graphic applications of the CAD class.
At the same time, there is a large amount of software that does not use multithreading or uses it extremely limitedly. Among the prominent representatives of such programs are office applications, web browsers, email clients, media players, and games. However, even in such applications, the dual-core architecture of the CPU can have a positive impact. For example, in cases where several applications are running at the same time.
Summarizing the above, in the graph below we simply give a numerical expression of the advantage of a dual-core Athlon 64 X2 4800+ processor over a single-core Athlon 64 4000+ running at the same frequency of 2.4 GHz.

As you can see from the graph, Athlon 64 X2 4800+ turns out to be much faster than the older CPU in the Athlon 64 family in many applications. And, if it weren’t for the fabulously high cost of Athlon 64 X2 4800+, which exceeds $1000, then this CPU could safely be called very profitable acquisition. Moreover, in no application does it lag behind its single-core counterparts.
Considering the price of Athlon 64 X2, we should admit that today these processors, along with Athlon 64 FX, can only be another offer for wealthy enthusiasts. Those of them, for whom, first of all, it is not the gaming performance that matters, but the speed of work in other applications, will pay attention to the Athlon 64 X2 line. Extreme gamers, obviously, will remain adherents of Athlon 64 FX.

Consideration of dual-core processors on our site does not end there. In the coming days, expect the second part of the epic, which will focus on dual-core CPUs from Intel.

Many people, when buying a processor, try to choose something cooler, with multiple cores and a high clock speed. But at the same time, few people know what the number of processor cores actually affects. Why, for example, an ordinary and simple dual-core can be faster than a quad-core or the same “perc” with 4 cores will be faster than a “perc” with 8 cores. This is a rather interesting topic, which is definitely worth exploring in more detail.

Introduction

Before starting to figure out what the number of processor cores affects, I would like to make a small digression. Until a few years ago, CPU designers were confident that manufacturing technologies, which are developing so rapidly, will allow the production of "gems" with clock speeds up to 10 GHz, which will allow users to forget about problems with poor performance. However, no success was achieved.

No matter how the technical process developed, that "Intel", that "AMD" ran into purely physical limitations, which simply did not allow the release of "processors" with a clock frequency of up to 10 GHz. Then it was decided to focus not on frequencies, but on the number of cores. Thus, a new race for the production of more powerful and productive processor "crystals" began, which continues to this day, but is no longer as active as it was at first.

Intel and AMD processors

Today, Intel and AMD are direct competitors in the processor market. Looking at revenue and sales, the Blues will have a clear advantage, though the Reds have been trying to keep up lately. Both companies have a good range of ready-made solutions for all occasions - from a simple processor with 1-2 cores to real monsters, in which the number of cores exceeds 8. Typically, such "stones" are used on special working "computers" that have a narrow focus .

Intel

So, to date, Intel has 5 types of processors that are successful: Celeron, Pentium, and i7. Each of these "stones" has a different number of cores and are designed for different tasks. For example, Celeron has only 2 cores and is used mainly on office and home computers. Pentium, or, as it is also called, “stump”, is also used at home, but already has much better performance, primarily due to Hyper-Threading technology, which “adds” two more virtual cores to two physical cores, which are called threads . Thus, a dual-core "perc" works like the most budgetary quad-core, although this is not entirely correct, but the main point is precisely this.

As for the Core line, the situation is approximately the same. The younger model with the number 3 has 2 cores and 2 threads. The older line - Core i5 - already has full-fledged 4 or 6 cores, but lacks the Hyper-Threading function and does not have additional threads, except for 4-6 standard ones. And lastly, core i7 are top processors, which, as a rule, have from 4 to 6 cores and twice as many threads, i.e., for example, 4 cores and 8 threads or 6 cores and 12 threads.

AMD

Now it's worth talking about AMD. The list of "pebbles" from this company is huge, it makes no sense to list everything, since most of the models are simply outdated. It is perhaps worth noting the new generation, which in a sense "copies" Intel - Ryzen. In this line, there are also models with numbers 3, 5 and 7. The main difference from the "blue" ones for Ryzen is that the youngest model already immediately provides full-fledged 4 cores, while the older one has not 6, but as many as eight. In addition, the number of threads also changes. Ryzen 3 - 4 threads, Ryzen 5 - 8-12 (depending on the number of cores - 4 or 6) and Ryzen 7 - 16 threads.

It is worth mentioning another "red" line - FX, which appeared in 2012, and, in fact, this platform is already considered obsolete, but due to the fact that now more and more programs and games begin to support multithreading, the Vishera line again has gained popularity, which, along with low prices, is only growing.

Well, as for the disputes regarding the frequency of the processor and the number of cores, then, in fact, it is more correct to look towards the second one, since everyone has already decided on clock frequencies, and even top models from Intel work at nominal 2.7, 2.8 , 3 GHz. In addition, the frequency can always be raised with the help of overclocking, but in the case of a dual-core it will not give much effect.

How to find out how many cores

If someone does not know how to determine the number of processor cores, then this can be done easily and simply without downloading and installing separate special programs. You just need to go to the "Device Manager" and click on the small arrow next to the "Processors" item.

You can get more detailed information about what technologies your "stone" supports, what clock speed it has, its revision number and much more with the help of a special and small program CPU-Z. You can download it for free on the official website. There is a version that does not require installation.

Advantage of two cores

What could be the advantage of a dual-core processor? A lot of things, for example, in games or applications, in the development of which single-threaded work was the main priority. Take, for example, the game World of Tanks. The most common dual-core processors like Pentium or Celeron will give quite a decent performance result, while some FX from AMD or INTEL Core will use much more of their capabilities, and the result will be about the same.

The better 4 cores

How can 4 cores be better than two? The best performance. Quad-core "stones" are already designed for more serious work, where simple "stumps" or "celerons" simply cannot cope. An excellent example here is any 3D graphics program, such as 3Ds Max or Cinema4D.

During the rendering process, these programs use the maximum resources of the computer, including RAM and processor. Dual-core CPUs will be very far behind in rendering processing time, and the more complex the scene, the more time they will need. But processors with four cores will cope with this task much faster, since additional threads will also come to their aid.

Of course, you can take some budget processor from the Core i3 family, for example, the 6100 model, but 2 cores and 2 additional threads will still be inferior to a full-fledged quad-core.

6 and 8 cores

Well, the last segment of multi-core processors - processors with six and eight cores. Their main purpose, in principle, is exactly the same as that of the CPU above, only now they are needed where ordinary "quads" cannot cope. In addition, full-fledged specialized computers are being built on the basis of "stones" with 6 and 8 cores, which will be "sharpened" for certain activities, for example, video editing, 3D modeling programs, rendering ready-made heavy scenes with a large number of polygons and objects, etc. d.

In addition, such multi-cores show themselves very well in working with archivers or in applications where good computing capabilities are needed. In games that are optimized for multithreading, such processors have no equal.

What affects the number of processor cores

So, what else can the number of cores affect? First of all, to increase energy consumption. Yes, as surprising as it may sound, it is true. You should not worry too much, because in everyday life this problem, so to speak, will not be noticeable.

The second is heating. The more cores, the better the cooling system needed. A program called AIDA64 will help measure the temperature of the processor. At startup, you need to click on "Computer", and then select "Sensors". You need to monitor the temperature of the processor, because if it constantly overheats or runs at too high temperatures, then after a while it will simply burn out.

Dual-cores are unfamiliar with such a problem, because they do not have too high performance and heat dissipation, respectively, but multi-cores do. The "hottest" stones are from AMD, especially the FX series. For example, take the FX-6300 model. The processor temperature in the AIDA64 program is around 40 degrees and this is in idle mode. Under load, the figure will grow and if overheating occurs, the computer will turn off. So, when buying a multi-core processor, you should not forget about the cooler.

What influences the number of processor cores yet? For multitasking. Dual-core processors will not be able to provide stable performance when working in two, three or more programs at the same time. The simplest example is streamers on the Internet. In addition to the fact that they play some game at high settings, they have a program running in parallel that allows you to broadcast the game process to the Internet online, and an Internet browser with several open pages, where the player, as a rule, reads comments people watching it and keeping track of other information. Even far from every multi-core processor can provide proper stability, not to mention dual- and single-core processors.

It is also worth saying a few words about the fact that multi-core processors have a very useful thing called "L3 Cache". This cache has a certain amount of memory, which constantly records various information about running programs, actions performed, etc. All this is needed in order to increase the speed of the computer and its performance. For example, if a person often uses Photoshop, then this information will be stored in the memory of the porridge, and the time to start and open the program will be significantly reduced.

Summarizing

Summing up the conversation about what the number of processor cores affects, we can come to one simple conclusion: if you need good performance, speed, multitasking, work in heavy applications, the ability to comfortably play modern games, etc., then your choice is processor with four cores or more. If you need a simple "computer" for office or home use, which will be used to a minimum, then 2 cores is what you need. In any case, when choosing a processor, first of all, you need to analyze all your needs and tasks, and only after that consider any options.

The search module is not installed.

Single core or dual core?

Viktor Kuts

The most significant recent event in the field of microprocessors has been the widespread availability of CPUs equipped with two computing cores. The transition to a dual-core architecture is due to the fact that traditional methods for increasing the performance of processors have completely exhausted themselves - the process of increasing their clock frequencies has recently stalled.

For example, in the last year before the advent of dual-core processors, Intel was able to increase the frequencies of its CPUs by 400 MHz, and AMD even less - by only 200 MHz. Other performance enhancements, such as increasing bus speed and cache size, have also lost their effectiveness. Thus, the introduction of dual-core processors, which have two processor cores in one chip and share the load, has now turned out to be the most logical step on the complex and thorny path of increasing the performance of modern computers.

What is a dual core processor? In principle, a dual-core processor is an SMP system (Symmetric MultiProcessing - symmetric multiprocessing; a term for a system with several equal processors) and is essentially no different from an ordinary two-processor system consisting of two independent processors. In this way, we get all the benefits of dual-processor systems without the need for complex and very expensive dual-processor motherboards.

Prior to this, Intel has already made an attempt to parallelize the instructions being executed - we are talking about HyperThreading technology, which provides the sharing of resources of one "physical" processor (cache, pipeline, execution units) between two "virtual" processors. The performance gain (in separate, HyperThreading-optimized applications) was about 10-20%. Whereas a full-fledged dual-core processor, which includes two "honest" physical cores, provides an increase in system performance by 80-90% and even more (naturally, with full use of the capabilities of both of its cores).

The main initiator in the promotion of dual-core processors was AMD, which in early 2005 released the first Opteron dual-core server processor. As for desktop processors, the initiative was seized by Intel, which at about the same time announced Intel Pentium D and Intel Extreme Edition processors. True, the announcement of a similar line of Athlon64 X2 processors manufactured by AMD was only a few days late.

Intel Dual Core Processors

The first dual-core Intel Pentium D processors of the 8xx family were based on the Smithfield core, which is nothing more than two Prescott cores combined on a single semiconductor chip. An arbiter is also located there, which monitors the state of the system bus and helps to share access to it between the cores, each of which has its own 1 MB L2 cache. The size of such a crystal, made according to the 90-nm process technology, reached 206 square meters. mm, and the number of transistors is approaching 230 million.

For advanced users and enthusiasts, Intel offers Pentium Extreme Edition processors, which differ from the Pentium D by supporting HyperThreading technology (and an unlocked multiplier), due to which they are defined by the operating system as four logical processors. All other functions and technologies of both processors are completely identical. Among them are support for the 64-bit EM64T (x86-64) instruction set, EIST (Enhanced Intel SpeedStep), C1E (Enhanced Halt State) and TM2 (Thermal Monitor 2) energy saving technologies, as well as the NX-bit information protection function. Thus, the considerable price difference between the Pentium D and Pentium EE processors is largely artificial.

As for compatibility, Smithfield processors can potentially be installed in any LGA775 motherboard, as long as it meets Intel's power supply requirements.

But the first pancake, as usual, came out lumpy - in many applications (most of which are not optimized for multithreading), dual-core Pentium D processors not only did not outperform single-core Prescott running at the same clock frequency, but sometimes even lost to them. Obviously, the problem lies in the interaction of the cores via the Quad Pumped Bus processor bus (during the development of the Prescott core, it was not planned to scale its performance by increasing the number of cores).

To eliminate the shortcomings of the first generation of dual-core Intel processors, processors based on the 65-nm Presler core (two separate Cedar Mill cores placed on the same substrate), which appeared at the very beginning of this year, were called upon. More "thin" technical process allowed to reduce the area of ​​the cores and their power consumption, as well as increase the clock speeds. Dual-core processors based on the Presler core were named Pentium D with indexes 9xx. If we compare the Pentium D processors of the 800th and 900th series, in addition to a noticeable reduction in power consumption, the new processors received a doubling of the second-level cache (2 MB per core instead of 1 MB) and support for the promising Vanderpool virtualization technology (Intel Virtualization Technology). In addition, the Pentium Extreme Edition 955 processor was released with HyperThreading technology enabled and running at a system bus frequency of 1066 MHz.

Officially, processors based on the Presler core with a bus frequency of 1066 MHz are only compatible with motherboards based on i965 and i975X series chipsets, while 800 MHz Pentium Ds will work in most cases on all motherboards that support this bus. But, again, the question arises about the power supply of these processors: the thermal package of Pentium EE and Pentium D, with the exception of the younger model, is 130 W, which is almost a third more than that of Pentium 4. According to Intel's own statements, stable operation of a dual-core system is possible only when using power supplies with a capacity of at least 400 W.

The most efficient modern dual-core Intel desktop processors are without a doubt the Intel Core 2 Duo and Core 2 eXtreme (Conroe core). Their architecture develops the basic principles of the P6 family architecture, however, the number of fundamental innovations is so great that it's time to talk about the new, 8th generation of processor architecture (P8) from Intel. Despite the lower clock frequency, they significantly outperform the P7 family (NetBurst) processors in terms of performance in the vast majority of applications - primarily due to an increase in the number of operations performed in each clock cycle, as well as by reducing losses due to the large length of the P7 pipeline.

Desktop processors of the Core 2 Duo line are available in several versions:
- E4xxx series - FSB 800 MHz, 2 MB L2 cache common for both cores;
- E6xxx series - FSB 1066 MHz, cache size 2 or 4 MB;
- X6xxx series (eXtreme Edition) - FSB 1066 MHz, cache size 4 MB.

The letter code "E" denotes the power consumption range from 55 to 75 watts, "X" - above 75 watts. Core 2 eXtreme differs from Core 2 Duo only in increased clock speed.

All Conroe processors use the well established Quad Pumped Bus and LGA775 socket. Which, however, does not mean compatibility with old motherboards at all. In addition to supporting 1067 MHz, motherboards for new processors must include the new voltage regulation module (VRM 11). These requirements are mainly met by updated versions of motherboards based on Intel 975 and 965 series chipsets, as well as NVIDIA nForce 5xx Intel Edition and ATI Xpress 3200 Intel Edition.

In the next two years, Intel processors of all classes (mobile, desktop and server) will be based on the Intel Core architecture, and the main development will go towards increasing the number of cores on a chip and improving their external interfaces. In particular, for the desktop PC market, this processor will be Kentsfield - the first quad-core Intel processor for the high-performance desktop PC segment.

AMD Dual Core Processors

The AMD Athlon 64 X2 line of dual-core processors uses two cores (Toledo and Manchester) inside a single die, manufactured using a 90-nm process technology using SOI technology. Each of the Athlon 64 X2 cores has its own set of execution units and a dedicated L2 cache, they have a common memory controller and HyperTransport bus controller. The differences between the cores are in the size of the L2 cache: Toledo has a L2 cache of 1 MB per core, while Manchester has half that size (512 KB each). All processors have 128 KB L1 cache, their maximum heat dissipation does not exceed 110 W. The core of Toledo consists of about 233.2 million transistors and has an area of ​​about 199 square meters. mm. The core area of ​​Manchester is noticeably smaller - 147 sq. mm., the number of transistors is 157 million.

Athlon64 X2 dual-core processors inherited from Athlon64 support for Cool`n`Quiet power-saving technology, a set of 64-bit extensions AMD64, SSE - SSE3, NX-bit information protection function.

Unlike dual-core Intel processors that work only with DDR2 memory, Athlon64 X2 can work with both DDR400 (Socket 939) memory, which provides a maximum bandwidth of 6.4 GB / s, and DDR2-800 (Socket AM2), peak throughput is 12.8 GB/s.

Athlon64 X2 processors work without any problems on all fairly modern motherboards - unlike Intel Pentium D, they do not impose any specific requirements on the design of the motherboard power module.

Until very recently, AMD Athlon64 X2 was considered the most productive among desktop processors, but with the release of Intel Core 2 Duo, the situation has changed radically - the latter have become the undisputed leaders, especially in gaming and multimedia applications. In addition, the new Intel processors have lower power consumption and much more efficient power management mechanisms.

This state of affairs did not suit AMD, and as a response, it announced the release in mid-2007 of a new 4-core processor with an improved microarchitecture, known as the K8L. All of its cores will have separate 512 KB L2 caches and one 2 MB shared L3 cache (L3 cache may be increased in later versions of the processor). The promising AMD K8L architecture will be discussed in more detail in one of the next issues of our magazine.

One core or two?

Even a cursory glance at the current state of the desktop processor market indicates that the era of single-core processors is gradually becoming a thing of the past - both of the world's leading manufacturers have switched to producing mainly multi-core processors. However, the software, as it happened more than once before, still lags behind the level of hardware development. Indeed, in order to fully utilize the capabilities of several processor cores, the software must be able to "break" into several parallel threads processed simultaneously. Only with this approach does it become possible to distribute the load across all available computing cores, reducing the computation time more than could be done by increasing the clock frequency. Whereas the vast majority of modern programs are not able to use all the features provided by dual-core or, moreover, multi-core processors.

What types of user applications can most effectively be parallelized, that is, without much reworking of the program code, they allow you to select several tasks (program threads) that can be executed in parallel and, thus, load several processor cores at once? After all, only such applications provide any noticeable increase in performance from the introduction of multi-core processors.

The greatest gains from multiprocessing are received by applications that initially allow natural parallelization of calculations with data sharing, for example, realistic computer rendering packages - 3DMax and the like. You can also expect a good performance boost from multiprocessing in applications for encoding multimedia files (audio and video) from one format to another. In addition, they lend themselves well to parallelizing the tasks of editing two-dimensional images in graphic editors like the popular Photoshop.

It is not for nothing that applications of all the above categories are widely used in tests when they want to show the advantages of Hyper-Threading virtual multiprocessing. And there is nothing to say about real multiprocessing.

But in modern 3D gaming applications, one should not expect any serious increase in speed from several processors. Why? Because a typical computer game is not so easy to parallelize into two or more processes. Therefore, the second logical processor, at best, will be engaged in the execution of only auxiliary tasks, which will give almost no performance gain. And developing a multi-threaded version of a game from the very beginning is quite complex and requires a lot of work - sometimes much more than for creating a single-threaded version. These labor costs, by the way, may still not pay off from an economic point of view. After all, manufacturers of computer games traditionally focus on the most massive part of users and begin to use the new capabilities of computer hardware only if it is widely used. This is clearly seen in the use of video card capabilities by game developers. For example, after new video chips with support for shader technologies appeared, game developers ignored them for a long time, focusing on the capabilities of truncated mass solutions. So even advanced players who bought the most sophisticated video cards of those years did not wait for normal games that use all their capabilities. Approximately similar situation with dual-core processors is observed today. Today there are not so many games that really use even HyperThreading technology, despite the fact that mass processors with its support have been produced for many years now.

In office applications, the situation is not so unambiguous. First of all, programs of this class rarely work alone - the situation is much more common when several office applications running in parallel are running on a computer. For example, the user is working with a text editor, while a web site is loading into the browser, and a virus scan is being performed in the background. Obviously, multiple running applications allow you to easily use multiple processors and get a performance boost. Moreover, all versions of Windows XP, including Home Edition (which was initially denied support for multi-core processors), are now able to take advantage of dual-core processors by distributing program threads between them. This ensures high efficiency in the execution of numerous background programs.

Thus, one can expect some effect even from unoptimized office applications if they are run in parallel, but it is difficult to understand whether such a performance increase is worth a significant increase in the cost of a dual-core processor. In addition, a certain disadvantage of dual-core processors (especially with Intel Pentium D processors) is that applications whose performance is limited not by the processing power of the processor itself, but by the speed of memory access, may not benefit as much from having multiple cores.

Conclusion

Undoubtedly, the future belongs to multi-core processors, but today, when most of the existing software is not optimized for new processors, their advantages are not as obvious as manufacturers try to show in their promotional materials. Yes, a little later, when there will be a sharp increase in the number of applications that support multi-core processors (first of all, this concerns 3D games, in which new-generation CPUs will help significantly offload the graphics system), it will be advisable to purchase them, but now ... It has long been known that buying processors "for growth" is far from the most effective investment.

On the other hand, progress is rapid, and for a normal person, the annual change of computer is perhaps too much. Thus, all owners of fairly modern systems based on single-core processors should not worry too much in the near future - your systems will still be "at the level" for some time, while we would still recommend that those who are going to purchase a new computer focus on relatively inexpensive low-end models of dual-core processors.