# what the cores of a cpu actually are?



## utkarsh009 (Feb 19, 2011)

*why is sandy bridge better than amd?*

why is sandy bridge better than amd? is it only due to clock speed? then can that performance be achieved by overclocking? if not then what are the other reasons? also apply the same question to older intel processors. why is intel always ahead of amd in the benchmarks?


----------



## utkarsh009 (Feb 19, 2011)

hello! what does having more cores actually mean? does it affect the clock speed? why do intel dual cores remain ahead of amd quad cores in benchmark results?


----------



## vickybat (Feb 19, 2011)

Cores are the physical modules inside a cpu that read and execute instructions. In a muticore processor two or more independent cores are present. One can describe it as an integrated circuit which has two or more individual processors (called cores in this sense).

Read *this* for more info.


----------



## utkarsh009 (Feb 19, 2011)

but what about the last question i asked


----------



## desiibond (Feb 19, 2011)

utkarsh009 said:


> but what about the last question i asked



it's because Intel's microarchitecture is better than AMDs. To make it simple, Intel's architecture is much newer and designed from scratch while AMD is still relying on nearly a decade old architecture. We are waiting for their new architecture based processors (should be in in a year).

Note: merged two threads opened by OP.


----------



## ajai5777 (Feb 19, 2011)

utkarsh009 said:


> why do intel dual cores remain ahead of amd quad cores in benchmark results?



The pentium dual cores and core 2 duos are no match for the AMD X4's with same frequency.Core i3 cant be considered as dual core as its architecture is completely different.It has 4 threads with hyper threading  and L3 cache.So it performs almost similar to Athlon II X4's.But for sandy bridge core i3  the story is different.


----------



## utkarsh009 (Feb 19, 2011)

ajai5777 said:


> But for sandy bridge core i3  the story is different.



and what is that story??????


----------



## Jaskanwar Singh (Feb 19, 2011)

^^just that its better in games but still athlon II x4 640 is better in multithreaded apps. and you know dx11 can use more cores effectively. so future is more cores. so go ahead with 640 @ 4.6k


----------



## utkarsh009 (Feb 19, 2011)

^^btw 640 is not available in ranchi but 635 is @ 4.6k. going to buy it in mid march after my exams are over. these questions wont alter my decided conf. but i am asking these out of curiosity. cheers and keep repying to my questions.


----------



## ico (Feb 19, 2011)

*Re: why is sandy bridge better than amd?*



utkarsh009 said:


> why is sandy bridge better than amd?


Because Sandy Bridge has a beter architecture compared to AMD's current K10.5 architecture which itself competes against first generation Core i3/5/7.



utkarsh009 said:


> is it only due to clock speed?


Not only due to clock speed.

In the late nineties and early 2000s, Intel was only aiming at having higher clock speed aka Ghz. AMD proved them wrong with their Athlon XP and Athlon 64 which used to pwn Intel's 3 Ghz Pentium 4 with only 1.9Ghz of clock speed.

Athlon XP 3000+ was a 2.1 Ghz processor and it was better than Pentium 4 3.0 Ghz.



utkarsh009 said:


> then can that performance be achieved by overclocking?


In the same architecture, the higher clock speed will obviously be faster. But then it is the efficiency of the architecture which tells you how good a processor will overclock and work faster. Efficiency of the architecture will also determine the power consumption and temperature of the processor at stock speed and when overclocked.



utkarsh009 said:


> why is intel always ahead of amd in the benchmarks?


It was never the case always. AMD ruled the market from 1999 to 2006. Frankly speaking, anyone who bought Pentium 4 or Pentium D blindly is an idiot.

2006 saw the launch of Intel's Core 2 architecture. It changed the game. AMD acquired ATi (graphic company) and faced financial troubles. Intel took the lead and is still leading. AMD is still competing with their 8 year old K8 (Athlon 64) architecture with minor improvements here and there. Let's see how Bulldozer delivers as it is AMD's first re-design from scratch and it is the one which will compete with Sandy Bridge.

---------- Post added at 06:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:33 PM ----------



ajai5777 said:


> Core i3 cant be considered as dual core as its architecture is completely different.


*It is to be considered dual core.* The only thing is, it has hyper-threading and a single core can manage two threads simultaneously.

---------- Post added at 06:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:34 PM ----------




utkarsh009 said:


> hello! what does having more cores actually mean?


Having more cores means you can process more threads at once. 1 core processes 1 thread. Intel's processors with HyperThreading can process 2 threads in 1 core and it gives you a 10-20% boost.



utkarsh009 said:


> does it affect the clock speed?


Clock speed is something completely different. Totally unrelated to cores.



utkarsh009 said:


> why do intel dual cores remain ahead of amd quad cores in benchmark results?


Depends at which price point you are looking at. At the moment, AMD's territory is the below $120 market. Above it, Intel rules.


----------



## rchi84 (Feb 20, 2011)

@utkarsh009 The reason why Intel Quad Cores are ahead of even AMD Hexa Cores is simply due to the nature of applications you are testing them in.

AMD's reason for dominance between 99-06 was because they were the first to integrate the memory controller onto the chip die, which is one of the major changes Intel did with the Core 2 series. 

Intel is ahead of AMD simply because their processors can execute more instructions per clock than AMD.

In games and other general applications, Instructions per clock play as vital a role as pure clock speed, which is why an Intel i5 760 at stock can give you more fps than an AMD Phenom 2 X4 955 OCd to 3.6 Ghz.

But if you look at applications like video editors which can use more than 4 cores, then the P2X6 will outperform an I5 760 IF it is multi core optimised.

I am really painting a very simple picture but there are tons of other factors as well.


----------



## Jaskanwar Singh (Feb 20, 2011)

^afaik memory controller was first intgrated with nehalem not core 2! Correct me if i am wrong.


----------



## vickybat (Feb 20, 2011)

^^ you are correct. bloomfields and lynnfields first had integrated memory controller. older c2d's and c2q's used fsb's.


----------



## Jaskanwar Singh (Feb 20, 2011)

ya as i thought. thanks.


----------



## rchi84 (Feb 20, 2011)

yeah my bad. Sorry. got confused a bit. Happens at my age i suppose


----------



## asingh (Feb 20, 2011)

Basically it boils down to the micro architecture of the motherboard and the CPU which it will me mated too.

Picture it like this. You have a machine which makes sugar cane. You know the ones where they squeeze the sh$$ out of the cane on rollers once the sugar cane is pushed through.

How fast the machine rollers are moved is the speed of the core. How many canes individual canes can be pushed through is the hyper threading. One cane is one thread to be processed. Number of rollers is the number of cores. How fast the juice maker (human) here, but mother board for ICs; can push in the "n" number of canes and collect the juice is the chipset. I.E. the overall speed at which the information is sent to the cores and fetched for further use.


----------



## Jaskanwar Singh (Feb 20, 2011)

perfect asingh. ..how did you think that?

rchi84
no problem buddy? but how old are you?


----------



## asingh (Feb 20, 2011)

^^
Like 10 years ago an engineer sitting in my friends flat, and having a smoke with me, explained this concept. Still holds true.


----------



## Jaskanwar Singh (Feb 20, 2011)

oh niceee


----------

