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

Discussion in 'Dell' started by jmDesktop, Feb 5, 2007.

  1. jmDesktop

    jmDesktop Guest

    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, Feb 5, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. jmDesktop

    Tom Scales Guest

    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
     
    Tom Scales, Feb 5, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. jmDesktop

    journey Guest

    To piggyback on your question, does 4M cache perform much better than
    the Core 2 Duo's with 2M cache?
     
    journey, Feb 6, 2007
    #3
  4. jmDesktop

    RnR Guest


    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>.
     
    RnR, Feb 6, 2007
    #4
  5. jmDesktop

    Tom Scales Guest

    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
     
    Tom Scales, Feb 6, 2007
    #5
  6. jmDesktop

    RnR Guest

    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 ?
     
    RnR, Feb 6, 2007
    #6
  7. jmDesktop

    jmDesktop Guest

    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.
     
    jmDesktop, Feb 6, 2007
    #7
  8. jmDesktop

    S.Lewis Guest

    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
     
    S.Lewis, Feb 6, 2007
    #8
  9. 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.
     
    Barry Watzman, Feb 6, 2007
    #9
  10. 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.
     
    Barry Watzman, Feb 6, 2007
    #10
  11. jmDesktop

    Tom Scales Guest

    I have to say I love my E6600 2.4Ghz Core 2 Duo 4mb cache.

    Now that's a marketing name.

    These are rough estimates, as I haven't written them down, but I convert a
    lot of video from Mpeg to AVI. Comparing an E6600 Dimension 9200 to a
    P4-2.66 Dimension 4550, I went from about 1 1/2 hours to convert an hour
    long standard def program to around 10 minutes.

    Yes, 10 minutes.
     
    Tom Scales, Feb 6, 2007
    #11
  12. jmDesktop

    jmDesktop Guest

    No other components in the mix that would affect the 1.5 hours?
    that's impressive.
     
    jmDesktop, Feb 7, 2007
    #12
  13. jmDesktop

    Tom Scales Guest

    I don't believe I stated that anywhere, did I? The reality, though, is that
    video conversion is almost entirely CPU constrained, which is why I used it
    as the example. Both machines have similar memory and virtually identical
    hard drives (Seagate 750Gb IDE drives), so the primary differences would be
    bus speed (not a limiting factor in conversion) and disk speed (again,
    pretty close, given identical drives).

    Since they were rough estimates anyway, they were intended as examples.

    Curious why you would feel the need to make such a statement?
     
    Tom Scales, Feb 7, 2007
    #13
  14. jmDesktop

    jmDesktop Guest

    I'm curious why you would be offended by it. I just wanted to know.
    It was not intended to question your authenticity. I was just so
    impressed that I felt the need to respond for affirmation. I simply
    meant it more conversational than anything.
     
    jmDesktop, Feb 7, 2007
    #14
  15. jmDesktop

    Tom Scales Guest

    I clearly read something into it that was not intended. I apologize.
     
    Tom Scales, Feb 7, 2007
    #15
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.