Quote:
What does the 9500 represent?
|
9500 is a model number, nothing more. I believe AMD's model numbers are supposed to represent the speed approximately comparable to a single core Athlon CPU at that speed. But it simply doesn't work out that way, a quad core Athlon is not equal to a 9500MHz Athlon.
Quote:
It says that it runs at 2.2Ghz. What ecactly does that mean considering I have a quad-core?
|
2.2GHz is the clock of the CPU. Each core runs at that speed.
Quote:
When I'm looking at games specs on the boxes the requirements usually say something like minimally you need a 2.8Ghz or something. My machine is brand new and has one of the best processors available, and it is only 2.2Ghz. Is this right or do you multiply it by 4 because it is a quad-core?
|
System requirements on game boxes are difficult to decipher these days. They don't account for multi-core CPUs, or SLI/Crossfire graphics cards. But, system requirements are really a stab in the dark anyway, even before these technologies came to consumers. It's not like a game that needs a 2.2GHz processor will just stop working on a 2.1GHz processor. They're recommendations. That said, when it comes to system requirements, multiplying a dual-core processor by 1.5, and a quad core by 2-2.5 will do about the best job approximating your ability to run the software adequately (which is of course based on the developer's approximations).
Also keep in mind that the performance of a computer does not depend solely on the CPU. Graphics card, memory (amount and speed), even hard drive speeds among others affect overall performance. Lacking in one area can sometimes be made up for in other components. Though, lacking in some certain areas can nullify any benefits attempted by other components.
Quote:
I guess I really don't understand exactly what the "quad-core" actually means. What exactly are the advantages and disadvantages of having a quard-core processor? Can someone shed some light on this for me?
|
CPU cores often follow a car analogy. Having a single core CPU is like having 1 car, a quad core CPU is like having 4 cars. If you have a car cruising at a speed of 100Kmh, you can only transport 4 passengers at a time. But if you have 4 cars travelling at 100Kmh - is that the same thing as having 1 car going 400Kmh? Of course not. Sure, you can transport the same amount of passengers in the same time - assuming you run at full efficiency. But you have to use 4 times as much fuel. You're 4 times more likely that one of the cars is going to break down. And what if the road is only 1 or 2 lanes wide? You can see now how 4 cars will never be exactly 4 times better than 1 really fast car. And it is the same with CPUs. Your 4 cores still have to share the same resources (like the cars have to share the road).
Now you question what is the real benefit of a quad core CPU. Well, versus a single core CPU of the same speed, it can potentially do 4 times as much work in the same time (but will never do so in practice). If you've been taking in what I was saying above, you're probably wondering why don't they just make a single core CPU that runs 4 times faster, surely that would be better. The answer is, it would be better, but we simply can't, with current technology, run CPUs that fast. They require too much power, they generate too much heat that can't be dissipated efficiently enough, and they place too much of a stress on the materials of the CPU. A car going at 400Kmh is great, but you're going to destroy the engine or blow it up if you have it always running at that speed. This is why focus has recently shifted onto not making CPUs faster, but make them able to take on more workload simultaneously - with more cores. If/when we come up with technologies to replace silicone, maybe GHz will be king again. But for now, we've pushed clock speed as far as possible, so we have to rely on more cores to increase performance.