Question Can u Answer This Question, 2 Cores + 2 Ghz Processor = 4 Ghz or 2 Ghz Each Core 1Ghz + 1 Ghz = 2 Ghz?

Oct 26, 2021
7
4
15
0
Its a 10 years old toshiba laptop, Like that the requirements of windows 11 meaning it will shows and requires? thanks for ur replies!
 
Depends on what you want to do, although Ghz is a very bad indicator for that which is why people use IPC or even better specific benchmarks.
if you have software that can use multiple cores it will be very close to cores times amount of work each core can do,
if you have software that can only use one core (thread) then you get only one core worth of work.
 

Math Geek

Polypheme
Ambassador
not to mention that speed itself is only a small part of performance. that just means how many clock cycles the core can do per second. the amount of work a core can do per clock cycle is massively more important.

we call this "IPC, instructions per clock". 2 cpu's with the same clock speed may not have anywhere near the same performance. for instance you can overclock an old pentium 4 to over 4 ghz. but it would still be horribly slow compared to even a budget cpu from today at half the speed
 

Math Geek

Polypheme
Ambassador
windows 11 is designed to run on new hardware and not 10 year old stuff. you'll not get drivers for it so you won't even get to use all the features anyway most likely.

you can probably get win 10 running on and it and should work with that until you can get a new system that will run win 11.

honestly there is nothing in win 11 that makes it better over win 10 anyway. it's mostly just cosmetic changes so you are not losing anything with using win 10. theough i'd personally put win 7 on it and never look back :)
 
Oct 26, 2021
7
4
15
0
That laptop is not compatible with Windows 11.
Windows 11 may work anyway but it will be slow - I wouldn't recommend it.
Yh, it's slow not much, like when u create folder and open icons u know because Microsoft have added lots of stuff to its windows since windows 8 and 10 came to market like settings now they add more customized options like when u right click on new folder and desktop to change wallpaper so yh that's why they increased the requirements for directx display 2.0 wddm atleast it requires instead 1.0 like 7 8 and 10 does!
 
Reactions: artk2219
Oct 26, 2021
7
4
15
0
windows 11 is designed to run on new hardware and not 10 year old stuff. you'll not get drivers for it so you won't even get to use all the features anyway most likely.

you can probably get win 10 running on and it and should work with that until you can get a new system that will run win 11.

honestly there is nothing in win 11 that makes it better over win 10 anyway. it's mostly just cosmetic changes so you are not losing anything with using win 10. theough i'd personally put win 7 on it and never look back :)
And sometimes the CPU makes sounds it blows too because it's running on 2ghz processors with 2 cores obviously windows 11 requires 2 cores with 1 ghz processor because!
 
Reactions: artk2219
Oct 26, 2021
7
4
15
0
windows 11 is designed to run on new hardware and not 10 year old stuff. you'll not get drivers for it so you won't even get to use all the features anyway most likely.

you can probably get win 10 running on and it and should work with that until you can get a new system that will run win 11.

honestly there is nothing in win 11 that makes it better over win 10 anyway. it's mostly just cosmetic changes so you are not losing anything with using win 10. theough i'd personally put win 7 on it and never look back :)
Yes, u r right, better to go back to windows 7 home basic or enterprise or switch to windows 7 embedded edition more faster on my PC and i exprienced some sound buggness and while browsing youtube and other stuff like gmail on ms edge while I'm screen recording on windows 11 that's another point to switch back to windows 7 from 11 :) thanks alot u full of taste for ur advice! :)
 
Last edited:
Reactions: artk2219
Oct 26, 2021
7
4
15
0
windows 11 is designed to run on new hardware and not 10 year old stuff. you'll not get drivers for it so you won't even get to use all the features anyway most likely.

you can probably get win 10 running on and it and should work with that until you can get a new system that will run win 11.

honestly there is nothing in win 11 that makes it better over win 10 anyway. it's mostly just cosmetic changes so you are not losing anything with using win 10. theough i'd personally put win 7 on it and never look back :)
And speaking of windows 10 I will never install it on my laptop again because it's very slow it popped my heart and made me crazy yh it's more slower than windows 11 I'll never install windows 10 ever again on my laptop it requires lots of cpu features check windows 10 system requirements on wikipedia u know what I'm talking about and windows 8.1 gave me bsod even when it boosts idk why because yh incomptabible drivers and not support to my laptop and cpu because!
 
Reactions: artk2219
Regarding the question in the topic, the answer is no, it does not work that way. I can provide a simple explanation:

Say you have a quad core processor running at 2.0GHz and a single core processor of the same design running at 8.0 GHz. You give both processors four tasks that take 1, 2, 3, and 4 seconds to complete. The run time is:
  • Quad core: 4 seconds to complete everything
  • Single Core: (1 + 2 + 3 + 4) / 4 = 10 / 4 = 2.5 seconds to complete everything
This ignores latency with memory transfers and task switching, but those are likely not enough to matter.

The only time the quad core can match the single core speed is if all of the tasks have the same run time.

EDIT: Regarding hardware requirements for running software, being vague about it also doesn't help convey the fact that CPUs over the years have gotten better single-core performance. A 3.8GHz Pentium D can't hold a candle against a Core 2 Duo clocked at say 2.2GHz. However It's not as dramatic as it was over the last decade, with the exception of Zen from Bulldozer, but the difference between Sandy Bridge and Rocket Lake is still pretty significant.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: TonyMontana18
Oct 26, 2021
7
4
15
0
Regarding the question in the topic, the answer is no, it does not work that way. I can provide a simple explanation:

Say you have a quad core processor running at 2.0GHz and a single core processor of the same design running at 8.0 GHz. You give both processors four tasks that take 1, 2, 3, and 4 seconds to complete. The run time is:
  • Quad core: 4 seconds to complete everything
  • Single Core: (1 + 2 + 3 + 4) / 4 = 10 / 4 = 2.5 seconds to complete everything
This ignores latency with memory transfers and task switching, but those are likely not enough to matter.

The only time the quad core can match the single core speed is if all of the tasks have the same run time.

EDIT: Regarding hardware requirements for running software, being vague about it also doesn't help convey the fact that CPUs over the years have gotten better single-core performance. A 3.8GHz Pentium D can't hold a candle against a Core 2 Duo clocked at say 2.2GHz. However It's not as dramatic as it was over the last decade, with the exception of Zen from Bulldozer, but the difference between Sandy Bridge and Rocket Lake is still pretty significant.
Yes, Makes Sense!
 

Math Geek

Polypheme
Ambassador
Regarding the question in the topic, the answer is no, it does not work that way. I can provide a simple explanation:

Say you have a quad core processor running at 2.0GHz and a single core processor of the same design running at 8.0 GHz. You give both processors four tasks that take 1, 2, 3, and 4 seconds to complete. The run time is:
  • Quad core: 4 seconds to complete everything
  • Single Core: (1 + 2 + 3 + 4) / 4 = 10 / 4 = 2.5 seconds to complete everything
This ignores latency with memory transfers and task switching, but those are likely not enough to matter.

The only time the quad core can match the single core speed is if all of the tasks have the same run time.

EDIT: Regarding hardware requirements for running software, being vague about it also doesn't help convey the fact that CPUs over the years have gotten better single-core performance. A 3.8GHz Pentium D can't hold a candle against a Core 2 Duo clocked at say 2.2GHz. However It's not as dramatic as it was over the last decade, with the exception of Zen from Bulldozer, but the difference between Sandy Bridge and Rocket Lake is still pretty significant.
this is assuming both of these cpu's have the same IPC. which is ONLY the case if they are both the from the same company, same generation, and same architecture. so the numbers may look good, this is kind of misleading overall.

for instance the 8 core amd FX series from years ago would oc to over 5 ghz long before intel could do it. but the intel chips of the time would outperform them by a long shot at around 4 ghz and only 4 cores. the reason was the terrible IPC the fx series had vs what the intel chips of the time could do. it's hard for some to understand or accept, but you really have to ignore speed unless it is a direct comparison of the same cpu. otherwise it does not tell you very much at all.

a stock speed cpu vs the same cpu overclocked is a good comparison of what speed means. but between 2 different chips it is not that telling.
 
this is assuming both of these cpu's have the same IPC. which is ONLY the case if they are both the from the same company, same generation, and same architecture. so the numbers may look good, this is kind of misleading overall.

for instance the 8 core amd FX series from years ago would oc to over 5 ghz long before intel could do it. but the intel chips of the time would outperform them by a long shot at around 4 ghz and only 4 cores. the reason was the terrible IPC the fx series had vs what the intel chips of the time could do. it's hard for some to understand or accept, but you really have to ignore speed unless it is a direct comparison of the same cpu. otherwise it does not tell you very much at all.

a stock speed cpu vs the same cpu overclocked is a good comparison of what speed means. but between 2 different chips it is not that telling.
Maybe next time I should do this: of the same design
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS