Articles

Single Core Vs. Dual Core speeds

dell dimension 8300
August 14, 2006 at 16:01:05
Specs: Windows XP Pro, intel pentium 4 3.00 GHt/

I was looking at all the processor choices out there and I saw something that caught my eye. It seems like everything is going dual core but I look at my processor which is a single core pentium 4 running at 3.00 GHtz and then I look at the AMD X2 4400+ which is only clocked at 2.2 GHtz and I dont understand why my processor wouldnt be the better one. I really dont have too much background on this and was just wondering if someone could clear up why the slower amd is better.
Thanks.

See More: Single Core Vs. Dual Core speeds

Report •


#1
August 14, 2006 at 16:28:45

1st of all, you can't compare Intel to AMD based on GHz. AMD CPUs are more efficient...that's why they use a PR (Performance Rating) number. A 4400+ single core Athlon64 CPU (if there was such a thing) would be roughly equivilent to a 4.4GHz single core P4.

And although dual core is defintely the way things are going, there aren't many programs or games that actually benefit from it right now. Unless you're a multi-tasker, you will see little or no difference bewteen a single core & dual core peformance. But that WILL change.

In programs that aren't optimized for dual core, the X2 4400+ is roughly equal to a 3700+, either are better than a 3.0GHz P4.

Intel's new Core 2 Duo is a different story...it beats anything AMD currently has available! :(


Report •

#2
August 14, 2006 at 16:35:02

About time you look at this chart.


Report •

#3
August 14, 2006 at 16:45:20

That helps alot. Thank you.

Report •

Related Solutions

#4
August 14, 2006 at 16:57:38

You'll see in this DOOM comparison, the numbers are close, but the 3700+ beats the X2 4400+

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=241&chart=70&model2=235


Report •

#5
August 14, 2006 at 17:45:16

The 4800+ X2 processor is the only dual core main stream processor that will beat a 3700+, but we are talking barely to the point where you wouldn't even notice a diff in anything. 105 dollars for 3700+ vs 4800+ X2 that's 300 dollars and obv when it comes to games and price the 3700+ is the way to go by far.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ OC 2.7ghz
2GB Dual Channel DDR 3200
Nvidia 7900GT
SATA II 2x 200gig 7200rpm 16mb cache RAID-0
Gigabyte Nforce 4 SLI



Report •

#6
August 15, 2006 at 05:09:54

Sorry jsn1404,don't mean to highjack your thread but it may also be of interest to you?

What would be the better to get?

X2 3800+
Or
X2 4600+

With oc'ing in mind.

512mb v 1mb L2
x9 v x12 multi
venice v Manchester

Also considering that it would probably be the last CPU upgrade for my socket939.

Tt Lanfire
MSI K8N Diamond
3000+'Venice'@294x9x3 1:1
1GB PC3200/4400
OCZ Powerstream 520w
6600GT
WDCaviar 160gb sata x2


Report •

#7
August 15, 2006 at 07:58:24

With what you got now (OC 3000+) I'd say none of the two at the moment, but if you really have to then go for an X2 4400+ (2 x 2.2 GHz / 1MB L2) vs the X2 4600+ (2 x 2.4 GHz / 512kB L2)


Report •

#8
August 15, 2006 at 11:26:46

Unfortunately all the 4400's I'd seen were really expensive so I ordered a 4600.

Just seen a 4400 today and it was cheaper than the 4600.

Oh well,might return it under the cooling down period and get the 4400 for the extra L2.

Tt Lanfire
MSI K8N Diamond
3000+'Venice'@294x9x3 1:1
1GB PC3200/4400
OCZ Powerstream 520w
6600GT
WDCaviar 160gb sata x2


Report •

#9
August 15, 2006 at 13:38:49

The X2 4800+ in the US is a steal for socket 939 systems now for only 295 bucks. This thing was running around 900 bucks just over a year ago.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ OC 2.7ghz
2GB Dual Channel DDR 3200
Nvidia 7900GT
SATA II 2x 200gig 7200rpm 16mb cache RAID-0
Gigabyte Nforce 4 SLI



Report •

#10
August 21, 2006 at 15:41:01

Went with the 4600+

Oc at 2.8ghz so far
234x12

2.9 might be ok if I max out the vcore.

Benches better than an FX62

Tt Lanfire
MSI K8N Diamond
X2 4600+@234x12=2.8ghz 1:1
1GB PC3200/4400
OCZ Powerstream 520w
6600GT
WDCaviar 160gb sata x2


Report •


Ask Question