C2D (core 2 duo) has a performence of 90%. PD (Pentium D) had a performence of 40%. Correct me when I am wrong. You also have motherboards wich can have 2 cpu's => dual core. But then you have 2 lose cpu's.
This thread is really funny. The question doesn't even make sense. It's comparing a real CPU brand (Core Duo) to a concept (Duel Core). That's like asking, which is better, a Honda Accord or a six cylinder engine? Huh? It seems like Intel really messed up on their marketing message and confused many people. There is the Core (Solo and Duo) - this is based on the Pentium M architechture. You could say this is Core 1. And the Core 2 (Duo and Quad) - based on a new 64-bit architechture. This is the successor of Core. Core 2 is better than Core just like Pentium 2 is better than Pentium. Hopefully people aren't getting tricked into buying the wrong CPU thinking it's the best one when it's not. Sleepy_Sentry has some good answers here. Most others are misinformed.
I love AMD its far better that intel for gaming due to its hyper transport and high overclocking capacity. AMD ME !
That may be true when you compare AMD's CPUs with Intel's last generation, but it isn't any more with the Core 2 Duo. AMD is technically a generation behind Intel right now. The Core 2 Duo wins down against AMD in all performance categories. If it were 2 years ago today I would agree with you that AMDs are faster, but not any more. Don't believe me? Look at this CPU chart from Tom's Hardware. It compares a plethora of processors' performance. Amazingly, no AMD CPU makes the top 10, only Core 2 Duos do.
Beside, since core duo and trioCore, it seems the that Core Quattro is not as good as the Itanium 4, specially when it's time to serve the 8.33 or the 8.66Mhz processor. At high speed, even my dual 1,200 Gb HD have hard time to retrieve datas in a timely manner. So, Go for te Itanium 4 for now. I said for now because since codytech bought Intel last year, Codytech processor are so fast that even AMD can keep staying in the race...
Not necessarily. Unless an application is programmed to take advantage of the second core, it will only use one core. So older applications and games could easily run faster on a single core processor than a dual core. Only the latest games and programs can use the second processor core.
The high end core 2 duo's are just flat out the best imo. I personally got an AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ (Brisbane 65nm version) Dual Core system (with 2GB of DDR). It's not as good as the high end core 2 duo processors but it's more than enough for using Photoshop, Dreamweaver, surfing the internet etc. My whole computer was only $560 and it seems like I'm never going to use most of the power in the system. However, I think it would choke up big time If I tried to play games on it just because of the low-end GPU. The same rig would have cost me at least $1000 (from Hewlet Packard) if I had gotten a high end Core 2 Duo. Just make sure you get a Core 2 Duo and not the old Intel procesors. I know Vista evenly distributes threads across both processors. It seems like most of the programs I use are multi-threaded but even if most of the programs were only run one thread you still get substantial performance benefits in terms of multi-tasking.
NO IT IS NOT. The Core Duo is Intel's last generation notebook CPU. It has been replaced by the Core 2 Duo, which is also Intel's flagship CPU or desktops.
I am tired of hearing that the Dual Core and Core Duo are the same processors. THEY ARE NOT! The Core Duo is the equivalent of a dang Celeron to a regular Pentium. When Intel first released it's Core Duo tooting it as Dual Core processor, I have to wonder if they didn't know people would test that boast. A dual CPU system consists of two seperate logical processor packages on the same mother board. They however share the same bus to the RAM, which does hurt performance. But generally, the bus speed is such that if you don't have any cache on the CPU die, ur CPU will be working at the same frequency as ur RAM bus. If you have a 2ghz processor and your BUS is running at 733mhz and u have no cache, the who system will run at 733mhz. That's where cache comes in. Cache runs at the same frequency as ur CPU. This discrepancy in speed has to do with the distance of RAM versus CACHE from the CPU. Basically, the CPU runs from the cache, and if the package is designed with great branch prediction, memory from the RAM can be loaded while the CPU is working with CACHE, and u won't see much slow down. Intel brags that their CPUs work with something like 80% accuracy with branch predictions. Why I said the Core Duo was like the Celeron to the Dual Core is because of that issue of cache memory. Not only isn't the Core Duo anything like a dual CPU system, but they even crammed both processor on the single die. Both core share it all.....cache, RAM Bus, you name it. When this hit the fan, Intel quickly made the Intel D line. Now, you had two seperate core on their own DIE with their own dedicated CACHE. The best way to test these chips to see the performace differences is with an emulator. Lets say the emulator core is like 300kbs, and the Audio is like 700, and the Graphic is 900kbs. You can load the core at 300kbs and the Audio of 700kbs into one of the CPUs 1mb Cache, and the 900kbs graphic plugin into the other 1mb Cache on the other core. Try this with a Core DUO. Now try it with a Dual Core. A Dual Core can matach a Dual CPU system any day of the week. Be aware. Because windows reconizes two CPUs doesn't mean didly. If you have a processor with Hyper-threading, you can get windows to recognize it as 2 CPUs, even if it is a single core package. Windows uses segments of codes called threads. Hyperthreading is internal CPU hardwared code to manage windows threads. Using the SIMD (Single Instructions Multiple Data) design of the processor, you can get the processor to process two individual threads at the same time. And pretend as if it is running two pieces of code at the same time on two CPU cores. PFFF! The instruction can handle multiple pieces of data, and can handle multiple thread datas, but I am at a lost as to how this works out as 2 cores. Whatever. Now...the Core Duo 2... First of all, intel scraped their NetBurst architecture all together. The D processors did not out perform the AMD's X2 series. These clunkers use a great amount of current which was ever so kindly converted into heat. Kept my house warm during the winter anyway. The who design of the Core CPUs in the first place and why they operate at lower click frequencies was that Intel claimed they would use each cycle more efficiently and use less voltage. Oh they did that, just the performace was not impressive. The Core DUO 2 wants to maintain that promise and scraped NetBurst in favor of the Intel M design brought to us by the Israel-based design team. Testing has showing the CoreDuo 2 to out perform the AMD 64 X2. As of this writing, the Core Duo 2 is the best chip out there, but that isn't saying much. They still share a single cache. Well it is 4mb. Hmmmmmm 4mb. But there is a performace hit when two processors want to access the single cache at the same time. If not, why does one chip get acess to the entire Cache when one processor is idle? Not all programs will notice this hit. The point I am making here, is that Intel has left the door open to a new chip. Can you say 2 cores with 4mb cache each? Anyone? Anyone? I am drooling over here. I will wait with my Dual Core until the Dual Core 2 is out.