silentknight329 Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 i am just wondering the difference between the 2?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moonlit Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 Less cache in the Dual Core. That's about it, really. I have an E2180 (2GHz Pentium Dual Core, 1MB L2 cache, 800MHz FSB) and it's pretty much the same as an E4400 (2GHz Core2Duo, 2MB L2 cache, 800MHz FSB) but with half the cache. Both are fairly overclockable, I can squeeze around 3GHz out of my E2180 and for a budget 64bit dual core chip that's pretty good going. There have been reports of 3.8GHz and above on air cooling and that's shit hot for an $80 CPU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenzer Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 Well, as moonlit said... The number "2" in "Core 2 Duo" means the second version of the "Core Duo" processor, and it have no reference to the amount of cores. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moonlit Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 Well, as moonlit said... The number "2" in "Core 2 Duo" means the second version of the "Core Duo" processor, and it have no reference to the amount of cores. Note that he said Dual Core vs Core2Duo, not CoreDuo vs Core2Duo. The difference between CoreDuo and Core2Duo isn't the number of cores (as you say), it's the fact that Core2Duos use a different architecture to that of CoreDuo and support 64bit whereas CoreDuo processors do not. Incidentally, the architecture in the Core2Duo is called Core yet the CoreDuos didn't actually contain it. Go figure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaKo Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 The original CoreDuo processors little more than a couple of uprated Pentium-M's glued together and the only reason they weren't called Pentium is because the brand was dead. As for the OP's question, the E2xxx range of processors are good, but the E4-9xxx are better. Read some of the wikipedia articles relating to the history of Intel processors to get a better idea of why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silentknight329 Posted September 29, 2008 Author Share Posted September 29, 2008 k thankx for all the info cause it always bugged me that mine friend who has a 2.53 ghtz core 2 duo was stating "its better than your dual core 3.0" i highly doubted it but i needed to know for sure thanks agian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moonlit Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 If you're referring to the 3.0GHz Athlon64 X2 in your signature, they'll probably be fairly evenly matched in terms of raw power. There's no direct comparison between Intel and AMD CPUs, relying on numbers alone will tell you almost nothing about the real world performance of either chip. They're good at different things, I wouldn't worry too much though, they're very capable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silentknight329 Posted October 1, 2008 Author Share Posted October 1, 2008 yah its the one in my sig.. thanks for clearing things up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.