I want to ask if the current dual core CPU, has Intel really achieved it?

It was reliable three years ago. At that time, Intel came out with PD's so-called dual-core processor, to put it bluntly, it was to put two Ben 4 together, and later AMD developed the K8 architecture of Athlon X2 is a real dual-core, in order to ridicule Intel

Later, that is, in July 06, the CPU of the core architecture was born, with strong performance, until today, a 45nm-level CPU has been born, which is a real dual-core CPU, and the performance surpasses AMD in an all-round way

Later, Intel packaged the two CPUs together to become a 4-core processor, and later, AMD gave birth to a true 4-core processor with a new architecture, but there is still a gap between the same frequency performance and Intel.

There are also many kinds of quad-core and dual-core, AMD and Intel have quad-core and dual-core CPUs, and they cannot be generalized.

As far as the current CPU in the same price range is concerned, the performance gap is not large! AMD's low-cost quad-core has a slight advantage in terms of multi-game opening.

** is the key, the hardware is inconclusive, you don't have to win or lose, it's enough.

For example, there is a female netizen who says that she only plays some QQ games, and the configuration does not need to be very high, and the merchant has no problem, and the final configuration is e6500+g31+2g+gt440, and he found that his computer is often very stuck.

Reason: He opened QQ three times three times + single open CF + 3 QQ... The result is that the CPU is always in a 100% state, and it is strange if it is not turned on.

The current online games, even some games that seem small, still have a high CPU occupancy (a common problem of domestic online games)! A lot of it isn't a problem with the graphics card.

If you want to open more online games, AMD's low-cost quad-core is undoubtedly a good choice, of course, Intel

i5 is better, look at your wallet too.

If you play a single-player large 3D game, i3

i5 should be more advantageous.

The main difference is in multi-tasking, such as opening more games, installing files at the same time, etc., I personally think that dual-core and general 4 cores are in terms of opening things, such as only opening a game, the difference should be only one hundred 10 or one hundred 5, basically not big, if you open more games, the difference should reach one hundred 50 or even double, of course, it also depends on which u compares, u 2 in the world, there is no difference between good and bad, performance is estimated by my experience, not an actual test.

Intel's dual-core architecture is more like a dual-CPU platform, and the Pentium D processors continue to be produced using the Prescott architecture and 90nm production technology. The Pentium D core is actually composed of two independent Prescott cores, each core has its own 1MB L2 cache and execution unit, and the two cores add up to a total of 2MB, but since both cores in the processor have independent caches, the information in each L2 cache must be kept exactly the same, otherwise there will be an arithmetic error.

In order to solve this problem, Intel handed over the coordination between the two cores to the external MCH (North Bridge) chip, although the data transmission and storage between the caches are not huge, but due to the need for coordination and processing through the external MCH chip, there is no doubt that it will bring a certain delay to the entire processing speed, thus affecting the overall performance of the processor.

Thanks to the Prescott kernel, the Pentium D also supports EM64T technology and XD Bit security technology. It is worth mentioning that the Pentium D processor will not support Hyper-Threading technology. The reason is obvious:

Properly distributing data flows and balancing computational tasks across multiple physical processors and multiple logical processors is not an easy task. For example, if the application requires two arithmetic threads, it is obvious that each thread corresponds to a physical core, but what if there are three arithmetic threads? Therefore, in order to reduce the complexity of the dual-core Pentium D architecture, Intel has decided to remove support for Hyper-Threading technology in the Pentium D for the mainstream market.

The same work is made by Intel, and the difference in the names of the two dual-core processors, Pentium D and Pentium Extreme Edition, also indicates that the two processors are also different in terms of specifications. The biggest difference between them is the support for hyper-threading technology. The Pentium D does not support hyper-threading technology, while the Pentium Extreme Edition does not have this limitation.

With Hyper-Threading turned on, the dual-core Pentium Extreme Edition processor is capable of emulating two other logic processors and can be considered a quad-core system.

At present, Intel has launched three types of desktop dual-core processors: Pentium D, Pentium EE (Pentium Extreme Edition), and Core Duo, and the working principles of the three are very different.