Is Core 2 Duo always faster than non-Core 2 Duo CPUs?

In a notebook or a PC, if a device has Core 2 Duo as the CPU, is it
always going to be faster than the fastest Intel generation chips? I
don't know if that makes sense, but I was looking at a laptop that had
Core 2 Duo and it was about $900. It had the Core 2 Duo, but it said
it was at 1.6 GHz. I know some of the Pentium 4 computers (that was
the last generation right? or was it just core duo?) had higher Ghz
ratings. I am just trying to get a handle on how to decide on which
is best for performance. Thank you.

"jmDesktop" <> wrote in message
news: oups.com...
> In a notebook or a PC, if a device has Core 2 Duo as the CPU, is it
> always going to be faster than the fastest Intel generation chips? I
> don't know if that makes sense, but I was looking at a laptop that had
> Core 2 Duo and it was about $900. It had the Core 2 Duo, but it said
> it was at 1.6 GHz. I know some of the Pentium 4 computers (that was
> the last generation right? or was it just core duo?) had higher Ghz
> ratings. I am just trying to get a handle on how to decide on which
> is best for performance. Thank you.
>

Core 2 Duo is fastest, by far, even at slower clock speeds.

Go to tomshardware.com They're a good CPU comparison tool.

Any way you look at it, the Core 2 Duo is the top of the heap right now.

Tom

To piggyback on your question, does 4M cache perform much better than
the Core 2 Duo's with 2M cache?

On 5 Feb 2007 14:36:37 -0800, "jmDesktop" <>
wrote:

>In a notebook or a PC, if a device has Core 2 Duo as the CPU, is it
>always going to be faster than the fastest Intel generation chips? I
>don't know if that makes sense, but I was looking at a laptop that had
>Core 2 Duo and it was about $900. It had the Core 2 Duo, but it said
>it was at 1.6 GHz. I know some of the Pentium 4 computers (that was
>the last generation right? or was it just core duo?) had higher Ghz
>ratings. I am just trying to get a handle on how to decide on which
>is best for performance. Thank you.


Unfortunately it does get confusing. Go to tomshardware.com to
educate yourself and see various processor comparisons. He can better
explain than I can <g>.

"journey" <> wrote in message
news:...
> To piggyback on your question, does 4M cache perform much better than
> the Core 2 Duo's with 2M cache?

Yes. 4Mb is the sweet spot. That's why my two new desktops have E6600
CPUs. That's the lowest 4Mb CPU.

Look at the comparisons. It's a big jump

On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 20:57:27 -0500, "Tom Scales" <>
wrote:

>
>"journey" <> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>> To piggyback on your question, does 4M cache perform much better than
>> the Core 2 Duo's with 2M cache?
>
>Yes. 4Mb is the sweet spot. That's why my two new desktops have E6600
>CPUs. That's the lowest 4Mb CPU.
>
>Look at the comparisons. It's a big jump
>

Ok, lets ask which is better..
4 Mb cache, 1 gig ram vs. 2Mb cache, 2 gigs ram ?

I know cache and ram aren't the same thing and my guess is the first
is still a better choice at least in theory. Is it true even in
practice ?

On Feb 6, 9:18 am, RnR wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 20:57:27 -0500, "Tom Scales" <tjsca...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >"journey" <rain...@oasis.com> wrote in message
> >news:.. .
> >> To piggyback on your question, does 4M cache perform much better than
> >> the Core 2 Duo's with 2M cache?
>
> >Yes. 4Mb is the sweet spot. That's why my two new desktops have E6600
> >CPUs. That's the lowest 4Mb CPU.
>
> >Look at the comparisons. It's a big jump
>
> Ok, lets ask which is better..
> 4 Mb cache, 1 gig ram vs. 2Mb cache, 2 gigs ram ?
>
> I know cache and ram aren't the same thing and my guess is the first
> is still a better choice at least in theory. Is it true even in
> practice ?

I just want to make sure I can see the difference with the human eye.
I looked at Tom's Hardware and it appeared that was the case between
teh AMD X2 and even the lower versus higher end Duo 2 Cores.
Overclocking the lower Duo 2 cores, however, apparently made up for
the speed. I'm not much of an overclocker, however.

<RnR> wrote in message news:...
> On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 20:57:27 -0500, "Tom Scales" <>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"journey" <> wrote in message
>>news:. ..
>>> To piggyback on your question, does 4M cache perform much better than
>>> the Core 2 Duo's with 2M cache?
>>
>>Yes. 4Mb is the sweet spot. That's why my two new desktops have E6600
>>CPUs. That's the lowest 4Mb CPU.
>>
>>Look at the comparisons. It's a big jump
>>
>
> Ok, lets ask which is better..
> 4 Mb cache, 1 gig ram vs. 2Mb cache, 2 gigs ram ?
>

The 4Mb chip is better with a gig of RAM simply because you'll be more
likely to add RAM than swap CPU's (cost/trouble).

Sorry to butt in.

Stew

Core 2 Duo is faster than the comparable previous chips. But all of
these chip families come in a wide variety of speed ranges. The slowest
Core 2 Duo may not be as fast as the very fastest "netburst" chips. But
you would be comparing a $200 Core 2 Duo against what had been a $1,000
netburst chip. Ignore the clock speed, but you can find online
performance comparisons.


jmDesktop wrote:
> In a notebook or a PC, if a device has Core 2 Duo as the CPU, is it
> always going to be faster than the fastest Intel generation chips? I
> don't know if that makes sense, but I was looking at a laptop that had
> Core 2 Duo and it was about $900. It had the Core 2 Duo, but it said
> it was at 1.6 GHz. I know some of the Pentium 4 computers (that was
> the last generation right? or was it just core duo?) had higher Ghz
> ratings. I am just trying to get a handle on how to decide on which
> is best for performance. Thank you.
>

Yes, the 4M cache Core 2 Duos are faster than the 2M Core 2 Duo's (even
at the same clock speeds), but how much depends on what you are doing.


journey wrote:
> To piggyback on your question, does 4M cache perform much better than
> the Core 2 Duo's with 2M cache?