Name: jsn1404 Date: August 14, 2006 at 16:01:05 Pacific Subject: Single Core Vs. Dual Core speeds OS: Windows XP Pro CPU/Ram: intel pentium 4 3.00 GHt/ Model/Manufacturer: dell dimension 8300
Comment:
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.
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! :(
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.
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)
