I've just got my self a new laptop Toshiba sat pro a100 -
http://uk.computers.toshiba-europe.c...shibaShop=true

I'm a bit confused. when its saying its duo core CPU 1.6Ghz. does it mean
its a dual core, running two 1.6Ghz CPUs? or something else all together?


many thanks if you can clear this up for me.

In article <yfWdg.5616$m7.3823@newsfe7-win.ntli.net>, "Dark Warrior_"
<dark_warrior_@-_N-O-_S-P-A-M_-ntlworld.com> wrote:

http://www.intel.com/products/proces..._view_core.htm

http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/0,39023100,39245725,00.htm (picture of chip)

Yes.

Paul

"Paul" <nospam@needed.com> wrote in message
news:nospam-2705060732440001@192.168.1.178...
thanks for your help

im confused still. Im looking at buying a sony laptop with a core duo
1.66Ghz processor. does this mean it will be double the power of a
normal 1.66Ghz processor? I am weary of purchasing it at the moment as
ideally I would like a processor more powerful than 1.66Ghz.

Thanks,
Miles

On 19 Jun 2006 06:29:46 -0700, milos_23@hotmail.com wrote:

No, it means in a very few optimized applications it will
run a few dozen % faster.


Is this so you can drain your battery faster, have more fan
noise and melt your pants while using it?

There are faster Core Duo than 1.66GHz now, if the notebook
model you want doesn't offer faster yet, either wait a while
or consider another make or model. I assume you realize
that comparing MHz to MHz, 1.66MHz of Core Duo does not
correspond to the 3+GHz of a P4. Different architecture and
it's a good thing too, a notebook would be a big problem
with over 100W CPU in it.

milos_23@hotmail.com wrote:
The core duo requires applications specifically written to take
advantage of the ability of the cpu to process code threads in parallel
rather than sequentially. Two or four computations at a time are,
obviously, much faster than two or four computations done sequentially.

The downside is that other than the latest version of Office and a very
few other applications (not including the WinXP OS), there are few apps
that are written for independent threading. The result is that there is
little advantage for the core duo in today's application world.
Hopefully, this will not be the case for too long, but given that
hyperthreading was instituted by Intel three years ago (or so) and there
are few, if any, hyperthreaded applications, one must consider whether
the price premium for core duo is worth it. The Apple core duo runs on
an operating system that is optimized for the capability; Windows Vista
will, I think, also be a threaded operating system.

Core duo runs at low voltage so there is an advantage in battery life,
if that is important to you.

You can get some idea of what the basic core duo performance is on
www.tomshardware.com and www.anandtech.com , both of which have core duo
hardware reviews (use their search functions). For my notebook cash, if
I had some, I would purchase a recent version of the Centrino and save a
few bucks.

Q

On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 04:46:32 +0100, Quaoar <quaoar@marcabfleet.com> wrote:

For starters there's no such thing as a "normal 1.66GHz processor" -
comparing different types of processors by clock speeds alone is utterly
pointless. It is a Core Duo T2300 or L2400 (low power version), not a
"Core Duo 1.66GHz" - you don't need to know the clock speed ;-).
You'll benefit from dual cores in any multi-tasking situation, be it even
something basic like playing music while browsing the web.

Not true. Windows XP is a truly multi-threaded operating sytem, so
multiple threads (albeit from separate programs or services) can be
assigned by the OS to different CPUs/cores appropriately. If you're
running a lot of things at the same time, you will gain something. If you
look at Performance Monitor in Windows even while running no application
in particular, you'll find a hell of a lot of threads running!

I don't think you quite know what you're on about. As far the process
scheduler of the OS is concerned, an HT CPU is more-or-less the same thing
as 2 CPUs (depending on how it's set up, it could just assume there are
two CPUs), and will assign different threads to the different "virtual"
cores. And I don't see how Vista is going to be any more "threaded" than
Windows XP - multithreading has been around for A LONG TIME, and servers
with multiple processors have been around a good while too - Windows NT4
could support multiple CPUs, and at the time (1996) the Pentium Pro was
quite commonly available in 2 or 4 CPU configurations. Multiple threading,
SMP and multiple processors are nothing new - it's just making typical
consumer programs make use of the latter two is, and in a lot of scenarios
writing a program to use multiple cores symmetrically is a lot more
complicated than writing it to just use a single core.

"Centrino" is an Intel brand for hardware platforms in laptops - which
includes the Core Duo - so that statement makes no sense.
Other laptop processors include the Core Solo (the single core
equivalent), Pentium M (which is older), and AMD's Turion 64 (single core).


--
Zilog Jones

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 00:40:05 +0100, "Zilog Jones"
<zilog@fake.ie> wrote:


It doesn't necessarily matter. Take for example a VERY
common situation on a PC-

User has MS Office, IE (or Firefox, etc), Outlook (Or OE,
etc), running. 3 apps already and among the most common at
that, but it will not make any significant difference
whether the apps in the background are getting much CPU
time, they can wait in the background just fine.

The most effective use of multi-cores are;

Single application where there are multiple threads.
More than one app with realtime processing needs. Anyone
with this latter need will know it, more popular candidates
include speech recognition, video capture, gaming,
audio/video playback (in the background).


I'd suspect he was talking about the operating system
itself, IT'S threading, not the apps.

Which is why many people are better off with one higher
clocked single core than two at lower speed (which had been
the typical tradeoff at same price-point, but it seems now
this is changing as dual-core becomes more commonplace and
the two main players are going to have pricing wars).


IIRC, Intel calls Centrino, Centrino Duo if it's the Core
Duo CPU used. It's a bit of a ripoff either way though,
since to qualify it has to have Intel's overpriced wifi too.
Costs more with no inherant benefit over same line of
non-Centrino branded notebook.

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 01:36:30 +0100, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

But if one of those apps is doing something particularly
processor-intensive (e.g. archiving or searching in Outlook), in a
dual-core system it won't take everything else down to a grinding halt
like it does in a single-core box - well, it shouldn't anyway... and
there's still the bottleneck that is the hard disk, but let's not go
there...

This does include a lot of apps. Say for example, your media player of
choice - audio playback will be done by a different thread to, say, the
app's display, or the user input taken by the app. So it's possible there
will be less latency between these different threads in a dual-core
system, especially when the CPU is under heavy load. In theory.

Also, more video and audio encoders are starting to use SMP in some form,
you'll have an advantage with those too. And MS Office 2007 might have
some form of SMP optimisation too.

How good are XP's system/service threads at using multiple CPUs, and have
they guaranteed that Vista will use them better?

Yes, but hopefully more new typical programs will use SMP in the near
future seeing as dual-core is becoming so much more commonplace.

Well Centrino's obviously been a good marketing campaign for Intel, as so
many people are buying more Intel products thinking that Centrino = some
sort of better processor than a normal Pentium M/Core Solo/Duo.

--
Zilog Jones

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 09:44:23 +0100, "Zilog Jones"
<something@iol.ie> wrote:


It doesn't necessarily matter. User has one app in the
foreground and thus it has priority, gets the CPU time it
needs. Things in the background can wait, there is no
grinding halt in a significant way.

Once the user brings another app to the foreground to use
it, the app gets the priority and is likewise responsive. A
bottleneck int he hard disk would suggest that even the
single core speeds available today are overkill, not that
dual core is more useful.


Yes the theory, but any properly running system can play
audio fine. It would take a more significant 2nd realtime
app to benefit in a perceivable way. Not that it isn't
possible, only that it is a scenario less common on a PC.
More common with the advanced users in this and other
tehcnically oriented forums but we are not an exclusive
market for dual core CPUs- everyone and their dog is now
buying them.



I'm not arguing that there isn't anything that could
theoretically take advantage, rather the typical usage on a
"PC" still benefits as much from a faster single core as a
slower dual core.




I doubt they'd go out on an limb and guarantee anything, but
the vague claims of a peformance benefit have persisted from
win9x to 2k to xp, so it won't be surprising that it is the
same with Vista... that they'll find some kind of misleading
use that does benefit a bit while ignoring the areas that
don't.



Yep, though I think a lot of it has to do with what's
available, the manufacturer's decisions on what to offer.
Lower cost equipment still seems to sell better and if
someone were to see a $400 or $500 notebook with and w/o the
Centrino badge, many will now skip "Centrino" assuming of
course that it does still have 802.11b/g

thanks everyone, has helped a lot. still not sure what I will
do............... think I may browse the market a little longer

or just go for it and get a vaio.

hmmmm.......

didnt quite realise how complicated processors can be. If it makes any
odds, it will mostly be used for pro audio production and gaming

miles

kony wrote: