processor question?

Yes it's good, I assume you mean the Q6600.

A 2.4Ghz quad core is equal to a 2.4GHz dual core, it just has half the theoretical processing power. A 2.4GHz quad can't be compared to a faster dual core, because very few programs utilize 4 cores anyways, so saying a 2.4GHz quad equals a 3.2GHz dual core, it not true. Some things your quad core will excel in, other things a faster dual core will excel in.
 
[-0MEGA-];966470 said:
Yes it's good, I assume you mean the Q6600.

A 2.4Ghz quad core is equal to a 2.4GHz dual core, it just has half the theoretical processing power. A 2.4GHz quad can't be compared to a faster dual core, because very few programs utilize 4 cores anyways, so saying a 2.4GHz quad equals a 3.2GHz dual core, it not true. Some things your quad core will excel in, other things a faster dual core will excel in.
Click to expand...

Bingo.
 
yea. the Q6600 is great, i dont think that the e8400 is worth it, but thats my opinion. the e8400 is amazing and great, im not saying that it sucks, but unless you are gaming all of the time, a quad core will lag less running many everyday programs and will multi-task better than a dual core. And when i say it will lag less, you probably wont notice. Another thing that is not widely accepted yet i believe is that quad-cores are more future proof as more and more software will utilize all four cores. Also, you can not compare AMD/Intel clock for clock. A 3.2Ghz AMD Athlon X2 is demolished by a 3.0Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top