Dual Core versus Core 2 Duo

highlydebased

This is slightly confusing to me....

What sort of performance difference is there between the Intel Dualcore and the Intl Core 2 Duo, in general?

AlmightyCushion

A dual core is a processor with 2 cores in the one cpu. Core 2 Duo is type of processor from intel. It is a dual core.

highlydebased

Right thanks for that

Also meant to ask- do I need a 64 bit OS and CPU if I want to run more than 3gb of ram...?

AlmightyCushion

Neon-Circles wrote:

Right thanks for that

Also meant to ask- do I need a 64 bit OS and CPU if I want to run more than 3gb of ram...?

Yep. Well you can have more than 3.25GB but the OS will only see around 3.25GB. Although I wouldn't go for Xp 64 bit because the driver support is sUpposed to be muck. Go with VIsta 64 bit.

PogMoThoin

AlmightyCushion wrote:

Go with VIsta 64 bit.

:rolleyes: He means 32 bit vista, not 64 bit

bandit197

PogMoThoin wrote:

:rolleyes: He means 32 bit vista, not 64 bit

And you know what he means, are you physic?

AlmightyCushion

PogMoThoin wrote:

:rolleyes: He means 32 bit vista, not 64 bit

No I don't. Maybe I should clarify. If you have more than 3.25GB of ram then go with Vista 64bit but to be on the safe side check you can get all the drivers first.

PogMoThoin

AlmightyCushion wrote:

Although I wouldn't go for Xp 64 bit because the driver support is sUpposed to be muck. Go with VIsta 64 bit.

:rolleyes: statement is a bit of a contradiction tho.

but ya, hes right, 32 bit vista will only use 3.25 ghz

AlmightyCushion

PogMoThoin wrote:

:rolleyes: statement is a bit of a contradiction tho.

but ya, hes right, 32 bit vista will only use 3.25 ghz

I thought Vista 64bit had more drivers than xp 64bit. Plus a lot of guys on here are running Vista 64bit and have had very few problems with it.

jonny72

Versus..

A core2duo is generally a lot better than a dual core..

I am pretty sure the bottom range core2duo, e6300 1.86 ghz outperforms a dual core 3.4 ghz. However most people just look at clock speed, which means you can often pick up some core2duos for much cheaper than their slower dual core counterparts on ebay.

AlmightyCushion

jonny72 wrote:

Versus..

A core2duo is generally a lot better than a dual core..

I am pretty sure the bottom range core2duo, e6300 1.86 ghz outperforms a dual core 3.4 ghz. However most people just look at clock speed, which means you can often pick up some core2duos for much cheaper than their slower dual core counterparts on ebay.

I think when you say dual core you actually talking about a pentium d.

somakasvh

A "Pentium Dual Core" is exactly the same as a Core 2 Duo, but with a 1MB L2 cache and an 800MHz FSB.
E4xxx series Core 2 Duos have 2MB L2 caches and 800MHz FSB
E6x20 and E6600 or greater have 4MB and 1066MHz FSB
and E6x50 have 4MB and 1333MHz FSB

mathias

A "Pentium Dual Core" is exactly the same as a Core 2 Duo,

Without inflicting the pain of a detailed explanation on everyone , no they are not the same ,

Core2duo is almost an entire overhaul of the x86 architecture , better manufacturing process , smaller node , less power consumption , and a host of other things , its not the best PC processor around for nothing , and it wops the Pentium D hands down.

Clock speed, cache and FSB speeds are the dumbed down selling points for the general public , anyone in the business knows that these factors are a just a small part of the performance of a processor.

Given the choice between a Pentium D , or a core2duo , go for the core2 duo every time.

tman

AlmightyCushion wrote:

I thought Vista 64bit had more drivers than xp 64bit. Plus a lot of guys on here are running Vista 64bit and have had very few problems with it.

Aye, it seems to be a constantly regurgitated issue from when Vista was first launched.
I've had no issues with drivers on 64 bit Vista, and nobody I know that acutally uses it has had any issues (official Nvidia ones aren't released as frequently, but you can still grab a beta release instead)

highlydebased

It'll be a core2duo for me so. Thanks for the help guys...

ethernet

Now, just after you thought you'd sorted that one, it seems Intel is going to rename processors next year.

evildoer12

I'm curious about the consideration on system requirements for software application for example:an EA games having a system requiremnts of 2ghz and is hte processor reached the requirements if its 1.8ghz core2duo?

Voipjunkie

evildoer12 wrote: »

I'm curious about the consideration on system requirements for software application for example:an EA games having a system requiremnts of 2ghz and is hte processor reached the requirements if its 1.8ghz core2duo?

If the system requirement is for a Pentium or Athlon 2Ghz then a core2duo 1.8 is much better than that

have a look at tomshardware cpu chart for a guide


http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html

See even the cheap and cheerful E4300 core2duo 1.8ghz out performs the old pentium 4 3.8ghz by about 40-50% on most tests

TerrorFirmer

mathias wrote: »

Without inflicting the pain of a detailed explanation on everyone , no they are not the same ,

Core2duo is almost an entire overhaul of the x86 architecture , better manufacturing process , smaller node , less power consumption , and a host of other things , its not the best PC processor around for nothing , and it wops the Pentium D hands down.

Clock speed, cache and FSB speeds are the dumbed down selling points for the general public , anyone in the business knows that these factors are a just a small part of the performance of a processor.

Given the choice between a Pentium D , or a core2duo , go for the core2 duo every time.

He was referring to the Pentium Dual Core there, not actually Pentium D. While obviously I'd agree that Pentium D at this stage is inefficient as a new basis for a dual core system, the Pentium Dual Core processors are quite good. The reduced cache doesn't affect performance terribly and they overclock excellently - so for about 80 euro you are looking at a potential 3Ghz at least with a good board. I have mine at just 2.3Ghz from 1.8 (virtually no difference in temps), and I have no problem running any game at high settings. So while it might be a technical bottleneck in practice it's only throttling me at levels that are undetectable (like I'm sure I could get 70fps instead of 60fps with a better cpu etc but it's not actually noticable).

If you're on a budget, they're excellent value for money, and would allow you to prioritize for other parts, like graphics card etc.