My question is, what is better a 5ghz quadcore or a 10ghz duocore

5ghz, think of the heat and power draw from 10ghz

Clock speed alone means nothing without knowing the Cycles Per Instruction.

If they are the same, the duocore is better for singlethreaded applications and the quadcore is better for multithreaded applications.

>>55982076

>10ghz

Imagine the heat generation.

>>55982121
>If they are the same, the duocore is better for singlethreaded applications and the quadcore is better for multithreaded applications.
Actually nah.
The dual would be better for single/dual/triple. They'd be the same in quad+ threaded.

>>55982076
Duocore because each core is faster.

The duocore, assuming every other facet of these two hypothetical processors is identical. It will have vastly better performance in poorly parallelized tasks. Of course in the real world this is never the case so your question is stupid and you're gay.

>>55982136
>>55982100
I am talking about outta box non-overclocked cpu's,

>what is better
Not being 12 years old

>>55982180
10GHz CPUs can't physically exist with mad cooling systems and beefy PSUs. The physics simply aren't going to work otherwise without causing a house fire.

File: .png (134KB, 322x323px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 322x323px

>>55982180
>processors can only produce absurd amounts of heat or be power inefficient if overclocked
I see you've never purchased AMD before.

>>55982180
Just because it's OC'd compared to stock doesn't mean it won't be any less hot and power hungry.
10ghz is 10ghz, OC'd or not
It's gonna be hot as shit and draw high wattage
5-6ghz is likely going to be the absolute max for processors for a long while, maybe we'll see commercial 5ghz stock in a few years

So if we got a 8 core 2.4 ghz cpu, why can't we just, make it a single core 19.2 ghz cpu?

I mean if we can power 15 watt on a 100 core 1ghz, why can't we do the same on a 1 core 100ghz?