Dual Core or Core2Duo?

[gtr34]

What is the difference between Intel Dual Core and Core 2 Duo, and which one is would you recommend?

[SpireTECH]

"Core 2" an Intel brand, representing its flagship consumer line of processors based on the "Core 2" microarchitecture. Core2 processors are available in Solo, Duo, and Quad configurations, representing 1, 2 or 4 cores respectively.

"Dual Core" is a term reserved for chips that contain more than one processor in a single chip. The term has no specific definition of requirements, with regards to what comprises a second core, whether independent cache is required or just a second processing thread.

Core2Duo processors are "dual core" chips. However, it's important to note that all dual core chips are not Core2 chips. What you are probably referring to is another line of chips, the Pentium Dual-core line. The Pentium dual-core line is marketed as a cheaper and slightly inferior line of chips compared to the Core2 line. The microarchitecture of both chip lines are extremely similar, and have evolved in unison since their inception in 2006. The real difference is that the Pentium line is fitted with smaller L2 cache than the Core/Core2 models.

We highly recommend Core2Duo or Quad processors. Real world performance differences over the Solo and Pentium processors is significant, especially in terms of responsiveness. The extra execution thread and cache really make a difference.

[beyondpinoy]

^^ what he said

[dr_jared88]

Also be aware the Intel has just Pentium dual cores. Also there is core duo's which are the predecessor of the Core 2 Duos

[gtr34]

Which one would you guys recommend?

[ZorroAMG]

Core2 Duo AS PER ABOVE.


My MacBook Pro (first version, shipped April '06) has the Core Duo. The current MacBook Pros have Core 2 Duo (Late '07-present). Which do you think is better?

[dr_jared88]

depends what you want your pc for. Core2Duo is more then enough for the average user but if you are a hard core gamer, video editor etc. you may consider stepping up to a quad core.

[dr_jared88]

Originally posted by ZorroAMG
My MacBook Pro (first version, shipped April '06) has the Core Duo. The current MacBook Pros have Core 2 Duo (Late '07-present). Which do you think is better?

Core2 is hands down better then the Core Duo but is it enough to justify an upgrade? Probably not unless you need the extra speed.

[copynpaste]

I wonder when theyre coming out with quad for laptops.

[dr_jared88]

Originally posted by copynpaste
I wonder when theyre coming out with quad for laptops.

There is already a couple out. Check out the Acer Aspire 8930G.

[ekcondon]

^^ agreed, although the Core2Duo may seem a little more expensive than some similar AMD processors, the performance you get out of the Core2Duo is much better. It's the old "You get what you pay for"

A good example is I do alot of virtulization at home, and when I first built the PC that I am using I cheaped out and bought a AMD dual-core processor, When in retrospect, I should have just bit the bullet and spent the extra money on the Intel, much better performance. I have a Core2Duo E8400 w/ 4GB of RAM at work and the thing just screams!

[copynpaste]

Originally posted by dr_jared88


There is already a couple out. Check out the Acer Aspire 8930G.

Oh, well but unless youre doing super heavy apps like graphic apps or gaming Core2duo is still more than good enough for laptops.

Originally posted by ekcondon
^^ agreed, although the Core2Duo may seem a little more expensive than some similar AMD processors, the performance you get out of the Core2Duo is much better. It's the old "You get what you pay for"

A good example is I do alot of virtulization at home, and when I first built the PC that I am using I cheaped out and bought a AMD dual-core processor, When in retrospect, I should have just bit the bullet and spent the extra money on the Intel, much better performance. I have a Core2Duo E8400 w/ 4GB of RAM at work and the thing just screams!

I thought AMD CPUs were known to be faster and more bang for your buck? Maybe that was back then? and for games mainly?

[dr_jared88]

Originally posted by copynpaste
I thought AMD CPUs were known to be faster and more bang for your buck? Maybe that was back then? and for games mainly?

They were years ago. But for the last bit, especially since the Core Duo came out I'd have to say Intel for the most part destroys AMD's. But as stated you do pay a little more for "the same specs".

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by copynpaste
I thought AMD CPUs were known to be faster and more bang for your buck? Maybe that was back then? and for games mainly?

AMD hasn't been the gamer's choice for 2-3 years now. Ever since Core started. They are so far behind and now lack of cash, I doubt AMD will be competitive again.

I still don't know if there are benefit to going quad core unless you are playing with virtualization. For the price, I rather get a faster dual core than a slower quad core.

[msommers]

For guys with laptops, I've heard the AMDs drain your battery a lot faster than the intels.

[HyperZell]

Just to clariy: Core and Core 2 are the names of the line, not Core 2 Duo. The "Duo" or "Quad" part refers to the number of cores. And yes, Core 2 is much better than Core. And regarding AMD - agreed, they haven't been in the game since Core. And even now, with Intel's new Corei7, AMD is further behind than ever before.

[Mibz]

Originally posted by Xtrema
I still don't know if there are benefit to going quad core unless you are playing with virtualization. For the price, I rather get a faster dual core than a slower quad core.

+1

[soupey]

Originally posted by msommers
For guys with laptops, I've heard the AMDs drain your battery a lot faster than the intels.

that depends if it using "centrino" technology, centrino is an intel hardware package including the motherboard, cpu, wireless, and chipset, in many laptops to help optimize battery performance, which ultimately destroys AMD's when it comes to laptops....although the relative capacities of batteries also plays a role in how long a laptop will take to run out of juice when you're on the road.

[01RedDX]

.

[SpireTECH]

I tend to agree with both viewpoints on Duo vs Quad. The best route to go would depend on how you utilize your computer. If you multitask a lot, quad is definitely the way to go. On the other hand, if you run one main process that you want to dedicate most of your CPU power to (eg. gaming), then Duo may be more bang for your buck.

Most systems we build are Duo's, unless the system will be a real workhorse. If we're building a designer's PC, then we'll throw the Quad in.

I would guess that most computer guru's would favour the Quad, simply for the benefits in responsiveness when multitasking. Personally I would find it very difficult to move back to a Duo after having used the Q6600 so long.