Jump to content

processer 2.0 ghz


wildbill

Recommended Posts

If you're running a Core 2 Duo it's not a problem. With the way processors work these days the Ghz doesn't really mean much. A 2.4Ghz Core 2 Duo will beat out a 3.0Ghz X2 Athlon any day, for example.

Just like because a video card has 512mb of memory on it doesn't mean it'll beat out one with 256mb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A 2.4Ghz Core 2 Duo will beat out a 3.0Ghz X2 Athlon any day, for example.

Ok Nutlink, I don't want you to feel like I'm busting your balls because I think you are a great poster and contributer to these boards but I have been getting extremely miffed about several posts like this which I feel are inaccurate. Here are some facts.

2.4 ghz intel core 2 duo = E6600 = $229.99

3.0 ghz X2 = Athlon x2 6000 = $169.99

This benchmark here: http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.htm...2&chart=422 has the athlon performing somewhat better then the C2D. If you look through the other benchmarks sometimes it's the intel on top and for many others its the Athlon. I would rather save the $60 and get a cpu which will show no noticeable differences to it's core 2 duo counterpart.

Edit: Just to clear up I'm comparing the two cpu's listed above in these benchmarks not all the other ones listed

What Nutlink first stated though is correct OP. The speed on the dual cores is not comparable to single core cpus. There is a lot to learn in the processor world and I highly suggest spending some quality time doing some reading to help understand even just a little bit.

Lets try not to be biased people. I personally went with an X2 set up, reason being is that I like to overclock and they have some great 65nm x2 processors that are great. I built a $400 machine which runs GRAW2 extremely nice and does what I want it to do and I didn't have to sacrifice the family's entertainment money to do it.

:rant: Ok rant off

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that 3.0Ghz AMD isn't likely to be able to be upgraded any time soon considering AMDs next set of chips is going to be on a different socket, right? If you go Intel you could upgrade to a quad-core pretty cheap as well. I suppose I may have been off on assuming the E6600 beats out a 6000+ but personally I would prefer the C2D (and I've had 3 AMD CPUs in the last 3 years and loved all of them so I don't think I'm being biased). Either way they are both good CPUs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that 3.0Ghz AMD isn't likely to be able to be upgraded any time soon considering AMDs next set of chips is going to be on a different socket, right? If you go Intel you could upgrade to a quad-core pretty cheap as well. I suppose I may have been off on assuming the E6600 beats out a 6000+ but personally I would prefer the C2D (and I've had 3 AMD CPUs in the last 3 years and loved all of them so I don't think I'm being biased). Either way they are both good CPUs.

You're exactly right, but that wasn't part of the earlier discussion. I'll probably upgrade to intel quad in another two years but by then prices will be even lower. For those wanting quad in the near future starting with the core 2 duo on a mobo that supports quad is the way to go.

My focus was simply on your bolded statement. What people do down the road is up to them and the research and planning they put into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...