WTF, man when you have no idea about something is better not to post. Intel core 2 duo processors are highly overclockable. The E6300 1.86GHz can overclock up to 3.2GHz if you have other good parts. The top of the line core 2 duo EX6800 is the worst overclocker from the E family and can be overclocked up to 600MHz max with standard cooling and parts. Anyways more GHz doesent mean faster processor, you need to look at the other specifications also and it's a must to see some benchmarks.
WTF, man..We are not talking about over clocking here.. we are talking about witch is faster just plain out of the box.. Of course you can over clock the AMDs to..
Well depends, you can't compare Intel E6300 with AMD X2 5000+ you need to compare it with AMD x2 3800 or 4200! Overall Intel processors are a lot better than AMD curently!
FYI, here are the numbers on my MacBook Pro: Hardware Overview: Machine Name: MacBook Pro 15" Machine Model: MacBookPro1,1 Processor Name: Intel Core Duo Processor Speed: 2 GHz Number Of Processors: 1 Total Number Of Cores: 2 L2 Cache (per processor): 2 MB Memory: 2 GB Bus Speed: 667 MHz
So would the general consensus be that they are two physical processors? Or one virtual one? It's starting to confuse me with these arguments
The processor is one and it has two cores. So it means you have each core running at 1.86ghz (taking core2duo E6300 as an example). It is different from hyperthreading. Hyperthreading is virtual this is not. What you get is anywhere between 60 to 100% more performance than a single core processor. Here Ghz do not matter. E6800> E6700>E6600>E6400>E6300>Pentium D series for Intel. For laptops you have Merom processors in speeds upto 2.33ghz. Apple iMac and laptops make use of the Merom proccessor. Merom supports 64bit Coreduo doesn't. Most of the newer laptops are based on Merom. For AMD you have the Turion line of processors for laptops. Hope it clears it up a bit ARonald
Thanks, ARonald. Very helpful explanation, and and it helps understand my post above listing a portion of the system analysis report on my MacBook Pro. One processor, two cores. Machine Name: MacBook Pro 15" Machine Model: MacBookPro1,1 Processor Name: Intel Core Duo Processor Speed: 2 GHz Number Of Processors: 1 Total Number Of Cores: 2
Think about a dual core processor like this: You go to the movies. There is one line that can move at a good speed (say 4 people/minute buying tickets). Then they open a second line, but each line now slows down (say 3/people per minute). Which config is better? The single faster or the dual slow? All of these new processors can be oc'ed as well...I have a 2.6G AMD dual core, that I have oc'ed to 2.95 with no extra cooling. Also, despite what most people will say, AMD's FX and X2 line still outperforms the conroes anyday of the week...go AMD
Really?! I never realized that it heats up easily... I even thought of getting one. I'll try to read more reviews bout it.
The Turions in no way run cooler than CoreDuo or Core2Duo as far as I know. Intel still leads in the battery life department. What is true however is that chipset supporting the core2duo processor runs warm and uses up slightly more power. But the battery life hasn't not suffered and there is an increased performance as well. The AMD line of laptop processors are a good buy too. Laptop overheating can also be due to it being poorly designed or has its vents blocked. ARonald
So overclocking the 2.0 ghz Core2Duo to 3.0 ghz will give over 4.0 ghz in performance? That would be nice... Why aren't there high frequency cores out? I'm sure people would pay more for higher performance cores. Or is there a heat issue?
The power consumption and heat emitted will be too high for normal computer operations .(also they woudn't want the existing ones to not see would they ). The core2duo at 2Ghz (in fact 1.8ghz) is already faster than the Pentium D series processors. However people have overclocked the processor to speeds in excess of 4Ghz (using liquid nitrogen) and the performance is really amazing at those speeds.
you can't imagine 2 cores like that. IMO the 2 cores are separate threads. So for example if you have a core single processor working at same frequencies and have same specifications as a core2duo processor it will have same performance. But dual cores can allow you to run multiply application on once. For example you can play a game while you have your antivisrus scan in the background. Curently little software is coded to take use of the 2 cores and so the performance is same as with one core. So the couple applications as 3D max are coded to take use of the second core and thus rendering at faster speeds.
So to take advantage of these processors, programs have to make use of it first? That sucks, because not everyone is going to update old programs to conform to new standards. And what about game companies like Valve? I'm sure they won't implement it for a long time to come. So really, it is like haveing a 2 ghz processor on all of the applications that don't have special code to use both threads?
Companies like Valve have already implemented optimizations. To view HD-DVd/BLu-ray movies you need a good dual core processor to prevent skipping. So dual core optimized applications and games have arrived.
Yet still, it isn't good for other demanding applications that haven't. This worries me, because 2 Ghz isn't a great deal of processing power. Surely there is some way to take advantage of the other thread even if a program doesn't support it?
Actually 2GHz is more than sufficient. It is as mentioned before not same as Pentium 4's GHz ratings. 2ghz dual core processor is Vista premium ready More than enough for games(games need faster GPU's these days) An excellent performer in single core tasks as well. Hope it clears the doubts you have. ARonald
yes, you can think of it like that...I could play a game with my antivirus running in the background on a standard amd64...if you know how to set up your bios to utilize both cores, its not a problem...but most people who buy computers don't even know what the BIOS is...