|
|
#1 (permalink) |
|
New Member
![]() Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7
|
among this two processor which can give better performance and Why(What is the reason??)pls some one tell me.or mail to me ur sugession
at akhter_iut@hotmail.com 1.Intel Dual core 3.40GHz FSB-800 and cache-4MB 2.Intel Core 2 Dua-1.86GHz FSB-1066 and cache-2MB which one??? the specifications gven above about the processors among them which one is mostly measurable for greater speed?? Colck Speed of FSB or Cache Memory?? comparing this three among this two processor which can give gaster speed? Pls help....... ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 (permalink) |
|
Moderator
![]() Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 21
Posts: 5,187
|
The Core 2 Duo is the faster processor. The difference is primarily related to internal architecture, rather than clock speed or cache.
__________________
CPU: Core 2 Duo E6600 / MOBO: Gigabyte 965P-DS3 / GPU: Gigabyte HD4870 RAM: 2GB G.Skill F2-6400CL4D-2GBPK / HDD: 2TB Total HDD / PSU: Antec NeoPower 480W Cheap PSUs - 2% of system costs, responsible for 28% of system deaths As Sealed Stick was removed, lost or damaged, it shall be out of warranty validity. - The "Warranty void if removed" sticker on numerous CoolerMaster PSUs. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 (permalink) |
|
New Member
![]() Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11
|
with all due respect, what a most ill informed question. Processor performance is determined by several variables including motherboard, Front side bus, internal architecture, cache, socket type, quality of fabrication, and not just internal clock speed (where reported figures are rarley accurate anyhow)
With that in mind, do you not think you would get a more in depth opinion if you provided reason for your requested information!? Or are you doing some kind of quiz/test!!? |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 (permalink) |
|
Platinum Member
![]() Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 757
|
with all due respect, i think he means that comparing clock speed and cache between those two processors would be pointless because of architectual differences between them. apples and oranges.
65nm technology, and more efficiently designed architecture equals shorter pipelines for the c2d, which means it doesn't have to run as fast to do as much. it wasn't a question of how to measure the performance of the chip, but which of the 2 was better and why, with all due respect.
__________________
Intel QX9650 w/ Ultra-120 Exreme / Evga nForce 780i SLI
4Gb (2x2Gb) Corsair Dominator DDR2 1066Mhz 5-5-5-15 2 nVidia 8800GTX SLI / 22" Asus Wide LCD, 19" KDS CRT SB X-FI X-tremegamer FATAL1TY Edition w/ 64Mb X-Ram 2 Sata II 320Gb Raid 0 array, 2 Sata 110Gb Raid 0 array Super Multi Blue Blu-Ray & HD-DVD w/ Lightscribe / Floppy Antec Quattro 1000W Modular PSU / Lian-Li PC-65B case Dual Boot Vista Home Premium SP1, XP Professional SP2 |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| doubt in installing Win XP | jim_cool | Operating Systems | 6 | 02-12-2006 05:25 PM |
| PSU doubt | Fedcer | Computer Cases, Power Supplies and Cooling | 0 | 11-09-2005 11:41 PM |
| Doubt about ethernet & Fatal1ty A8N-Sli | Fedcer | Motherboards | 4 | 11-03-2005 11:18 AM |
| Double Fan | elmarcorulz | Computer Cases, Power Supplies and Cooling | 7 | 03-11-2005 04:26 AM |