Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Dual-Core CPU Buyer's Guide
techweb.com — To give you the information you need to make an informed decision, we've corralled all the processor specs into a comprehensive buyer's guide. If you've been sitting on the fence trying to decide whether to jump into the dual-core market, dither no more.
p9s50W5k4GUD2c6- 888 diggs
- digg it
- RegisPhilbin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Good article but I wish they had dealt with the actual performance of the newest chips with something more indepth than just a link to a list of third party tests.
- carguy84, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22Not enough links to:
• Introduction
• Performance Dual-Core CPUs
• Mainstream Dual-Core CPUs
• Bargain Dual-Core CPUs
• Single-Core CPUs
or
• Quick Charts: Specs & Prices- xlocust, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1digg down
- r2d7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Since when did you need one generation old processors for office software + myspace / youtube??
- darkyoshi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Since powerful processors made people feel special (always).
- HoboMaster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Have you been on myspace? My top-of-the-line comp has trouble with some people's profiles.
- xlocust, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Have you been on myspace? My top-of-the-line comp has trouble with some people's profiles.
I don't think your computer has anything to do with myspace profiles making your browser slow when people have like five embedded videos and a song in the background.
- iamausername, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7i've always wanted to know, seeing as some of the single core chips operate at a faster mhz than the dual cores, does that mean that for non-multiprocess applications, the single core chips will run faster? or does the processor split the load, not the application/OS?
- UrsusMorologus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5You've banged three or four things together in your question.
First, processors work on execution threads--if you have multiple threads and multiple processors then the OS will farm each thread to each of the processors, as available (very general description here). Multitasking works in this model by having the threads get suspended periodically, thereby allowing waiting threads to get some processor time (otherwise, a single processor would bottleneck on a single task).
Separately, clock speed is just a measure of clock speed, and not a measure of processor performance. AMD processors with much lower clock speeds than Intel counterparts can and do outperform them.
To answer your real question, yes, a fast single-processor CPU will work just as well as a multi-processing system, if you are only executing a single thread. But given that the OS also has tasks that it has to do, that only happens if you are running DOS, basically. - ByteGuerilla, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3To ask a followup question on iamausername's behalf, then, since the two cores operate simulataneously and execute threads simultaneously, can we say that a dual core processor running two 2GHz cores execute performs roughly equally to a single 4GHz core? That is, using GHz as a performance index rather than as a straight clockspeed (as in the way an Athlon 2500 has a performance index of 2.5GHz but might have a clockspeed of 1.6GHz).
- Vlatro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2As a very general preformance index sure. In reality, 2 Cores, running at 2 Ghz do not equal 4Ghz. Remember most boards are bottlenecked at a 2Ghz bus speed. AMD gets around this by putting the memory controller right on the socket, Intel just bumps up the clock speed a little more. Not to mention your system still has to handle the threads and distribute them amongst cores / processors. For the PC gamer, the real benefit comes not from the distributed work load, but the lower power consumption and thus lower heat. People are sucessfully getting up to 60% increases in clock speed without burning out their chips. With great cooling, a single core may be overclocked to as much as 25% (Higher speeds have been acheived, but the cost of the cooling unit often outweighs the cost of a new processor). If you are considering buying a new processor, definatly go dual core. I believe they are all 64bit, but I may be wrong. If you plan on upgrading to vista, get the 64bit enabled version. If you can wait a little while, quad cores are on the horizion from both companys, expected to start at 1.7Ghz.
- JohnboiWaltune, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I upgraded from an Athlon 64 3800+ to an Athlon 64 X2 3800+. Same clock speed, same socket type, the only difference is the dual core architecture. The increase in performance is fantastic. I use it in a server that runs 24/7, recording TV, running post-processing to cut out commercials, serving up video to my HTPC in the living room, ripping and transcoding DVDs, running BitTorrent, running a terabyte RAID 5 array, downloading from UseNet, etc. Often, it is doing 3 or 4 of these tasks at once.
I was having trouble with the single core chip. I couldn't transcode a DVD and serve up video at the same time. So when AMD cut their prices on dual core, I upgraded. Solved all the problems immediately. Don't forget to install AMD's "driver" software to let Windows use the dual cores more efficiently.
I noticed my DVD transcoding speed more than doubled. It went from 4 hours to about 90 minutes to do an average movie. In about 6 minutes, it can find all the commercials in a 2 hour TV recording.
If you do a lot of multitasking, dual core is the way to go. AMD has recently made their dual core stuff dirt cheap. I picked up my 3000+ X2 for $150 a couple months ago. Sold the old chip for $60 on eBay.
- UrsusMorologus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5You've banged three or four things together in your question.
- Pharaoh777, on 10/12/2007, -21/+5Lame. Where are the Macintels?
- Bob042, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2I'm pretty sure the intel macs use pretty much the same chips, they just use the Ghz measurement instead of Intel's model numbers to avoid confusion.
That being said, I don't know what A 2ghz core duo would translate into or anything. - robbh66, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9In the article, moron.
- Bob042, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2I'm pretty sure the intel macs use pretty much the same chips, they just use the Ghz measurement instead of Intel's model numbers to avoid confusion.
- webcrumb, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2I thought it was fairly simple. Get a Core 2 Duo E6400 and Asus P5W DH Deluxe, then overclock it to 3GHz (or more with something other than stock cooling).
- naberhaus, on 10/12/2007, -7/+0You are exactly right! I have a Core 2 Duo E6300 (1.86 Ghz) and a Gigabyte GA-965P-DQ with stock air cooling overclocked to 3.4 Ghz solid!!!
- webcrumb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Not sure why the digg down. I'm serious. The Core 2 Duo has lower power consumption and higher performance-per-price-unit (certainly when overclocked) than any other dual-core chip. Seeing as this is titled "Dual-Core Buyer's Guide" I don't see the point of getting anything other than a Core 2 Duo at the moment. For £300 I can get a motherboard and CPU combination that out-performs and consumes less power than an Athlon FX-62 across the board - a chip that by itself costs £540.
Anyone?
- naberhaus, on 10/12/2007, -7/+0You are exactly right! I have a Core 2 Duo E6300 (1.86 Ghz) and a Gigabyte GA-965P-DQ with stock air cooling overclocked to 3.4 Ghz solid!!!
- emailingRob, on 10/12/2007, -7/+0I'd class myself somewhere between average computer user and boffin, so I'd really like to know where my brand new Toshiba Satellite A110-276 laptop with it's "intel core duo T2300" (1.66GHz, check pcworld.co.uk) stands.
- Mudcrutch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6it stands as a last-gen processor...
- PsychoticCarp, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1The Pentium D isn't just one of the cheapest around its also one of the most overclockable
making it up to 4.1 GHz with water cooling (around 3.8 with a zalman)
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/05/10/dual_41_ghz_cores/- danielwsmithee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7It's also one of the worst performing ...
- foolfromhell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2is P4 (Northwood) better then PentD?
- PsychoticCarp, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2That's funny if you read the article you would see it outperformed most of the other processors at 4.1 GHz but you apparently cant read
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/05/10/dual_41_ghz_cores/page29.html
why look at that at 4.0 it outperforms most of the other processors! ooh gee yeah its one of the worst performing.....
Daniel your an Idiot - danielwsmithee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Nice to see that your statistics are old and left off all of the Core 2 Duos. Not to mention the latest AMDs, seriously get with the times. It was top of the line about 6 months ago.
- UrsusMorologus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1judging by the amount of down-modding for no good reason, the AMD fanbois apparently hate this discussion
- PsychoticCarp, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Daniel, Again your too stupid and you cant read that the article was written quite a while ago, and I never said it beats everything I said it is capable of being highly overclockable and great for the price but your sad sad mind couldn't get that.
- danielwsmithee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Sad mind? I never refuted that the Pentium-D was over-clockable or that it was priced to high, but of the available dual-core processors it is by far the worst performing and anyone with a brain would recognize that. Notice how everyone has modded down your comments because you are ignorant. The only dual-core machine that it beats is the Celeron-D, which is of course a Pentium-D with no cache. Obviously you did not reed the main article as it repeatedly stated that you are better of purchasing a low end Core 2 Duo then a high end Pentium-D. Yes the D can be over-clocked, but so can the Core 2.
- PsychoticCarp, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0What the hell are you talking about you moron the core 2 duo wasnt around when they wrote it... dear god your sad
End of Line - PsychoticCarp, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Oh wait, sorry your dumb ass hasnt even read the Toms Hardware article and your small mind could only read the "digg" article.
- K9Feldon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Alternatively, you could decide based on benchmarks that make sense for you. For example, if you do a lot of video encoding you might want an Intel cpu vs AMD, but it may be the opposite if you are into gaming.
Toms Hardware cpu charts get even more specific by using specific encoders or specific games, along with a wide variety of other benchmarks. http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html- scruffeh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1For what it's worth the new Intel conroes are a lot better than the AMD equivilants for gaming
- toran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Major kudos for linking to the printable version
- RegisteredUser, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0I'm still amazed at why Intel decided use such confusing names for their newer processors.
Core 2 Extreme X6800
Core 2 Duo E6700
Core 2 Duo E6600
Core 2 Duo E6400
Core 2 Duo E6300
Core Duo T2700
Core Duo T2600
Core Duo T2500
Core Duo T2400
Core Duo T2300- jramos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah, "Core" is a pretty stupid microarchitecture name if you ask me.
- webcrumb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2T for mobile, E for desktop. I thought it was fairly obvious. Not like X for Xtreme; that's just obtuse.
- TheTankengine, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@Webcrumb
What the hell are you talking about? The Pentium D (first generation Intel dual-cores) are designed for desktop use and the Pentium M was for mobile. The "T"s are the Core (1) Duos and the "E"s are the core 2 duos, obviously. The Core 2 Duos have code names which designate their intended use. 'Conroe' is supposed to be for desktop use, 'Merom' is for mobile and 'Woodcrest' is for servers. Though the differences are not all that great, mostly heat dissipation.
- davatop, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Which model is in the Mac Pros?
- danielwsmithee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The Mac Pro uses the Xeon 51xx chips. It is like having two Core 2 Duo E6600s.
- badave, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Good to see that my computer I bought three years ago still has the same speed as new computers. :-p
Oh, wait, I guess that would be half the speed. - eschreib, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2ok, I'll save you all the trouble and call myself a moron. What I can't figure out is which processors are 32-bit versus 64-bit . My assumption is that all Intels (less Xeon and Itanium) are 32 - bit, with some work arounds to handle 64-bit instruction sets. The AMD 64's are just that, true 64 bit processors. Other than, again, I am a moron, but is this even close to being on track? Is there not an inherent leg up to the 64 bit multicores that Intel is not addressing in Core 2 Duo?
- Thanks, The Moron.- webcrumb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Both Athlon 64 and Intel EM64T-enabled chips use 64-bit extensions to the x86 instruction set, so will run both 32- and 64-bit software.. Neither are true 64bit processors (unlike, say the G5 or ultraSPARC). It's just AMD got there first (with x86 consumer chips) so people tend to assume the same as you.
- danielwsmithee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The Core 2 Duo is 64-bit.
- ChileanGoD, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Still waiting for those multiple core optimized programs, aplications and games. Heck.. still waiting for the 64bit revolution.
- Whoboy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0'cmon whos gonna Read all that *****!!! just post the best most econmic 5 dual core chips and the single one and the best overall !!! i dont want to read about how processors work(it doesnt talk about how they work)!!!!!
- Muyoso, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"Dual-Core CPU Buyer's Guide"
Oh I dont know, maybe a BUYER who is looking for a GUIDE to purchasing a DUAL CORE CPU.
Idiot. - UrsusMorologus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If you can't be bothered, just buy a Dell
- ogre2112, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yes, buy a Dell. But if it's a notebook, make sure your homeowner's insurance is all up to snuff.
- Muyoso, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"Dual-Core CPU Buyer's Guide"
- Indrek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No mention of the Turion and Turion X2 lines?
- pugfug90, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"However, compared to an Intel platform based on the Core Duo and the company's own GM 945 chipset, the combination of AMD CPU and ATI chipset is inferior in terms of battery time and multitasking performance. Therefore, under equal conditions, it can only be regarded as the second choice - if it is worth getting at all. The Core Duo 2, Intel's next generation of laptop processors is already at hand, and first measurements show that the Core Duo 2 is even more powerful while not consuming more power."
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/08/22/amd_dual_core_laptops_have_arrived/page19.html
They didn't mention Intel's mobile CPUs either, besides, few upgrade their laptop CPUs. Even so, Any Pentium M, Core Duo, Core 2 Duo would smoke a Turion X2 in multitasking, battery life.
- pugfug90, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"However, compared to an Intel platform based on the Core Duo and the company's own GM 945 chipset, the combination of AMD CPU and ATI chipset is inferior in terms of battery time and multitasking performance. Therefore, under equal conditions, it can only be regarded as the second choice - if it is worth getting at all. The Core Duo 2, Intel's next generation of laptop processors is already at hand, and first measurements show that the Core Duo 2 is even more powerful while not consuming more power."
- iamausername, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I guess what I tried to ask, albeit in an uninformed way, is, I find it quite confusing now to distinguish which chips suit which tasks, eg: I don't know which chips will perform better for games, and which for applications or multitasking.
I realise this is quite a complicated topic, and there isn't really ever a definitive answer for these things, I'd just like to know a bit of the background knowledge, so I can make informed decisions.
the way I generally try to find out what chips perform the best is just going to places like tomshardware, or looking at the top of the line manufactured pcs from places like dell and alienware, and seeing what chips they use for different types of machines.
gets a bit hard when dell don't use amd chips (yet) so its hard to tell. - JayRod, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Top of the line processor I pick Core 2 Duo Extreme. Affordable processor I would pick dual core Athlon64 over Pentium D. Some of the AM2 socket AMD processors are lower wattage too, that makes it even sweeter.
- noseeme, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm thinking of getting a laptop with a Core 2 Duo in it soon. My most important feature is price. Any recommendations?
Yes, I read this. :|- JohnboiWaltune, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1newegg.com
- asdf25, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1It's highly irresponsible the way the article states that the top-end Core 2 Duo's and the Athlon FX-62 are the fastest CPU's, without mentioning that there is NO legitimate reason for anyone to buy an Athlon FX-62. They're ludicrously overpriced; a Core 2 Duo 6600 will outperform it for 30% of the price. And that's not even considering that Core 2 Duo's overclock very well, whereas the FX-62 overclocks relatively poorly. Either the article's author is ignorant of the facts, or he has some reason to avoid saying anything negative about AMD's products.
Making a legitimate "dual core CPU buyer's guide" would be very easy. I'll do it right now... if you want the fastest CPU available at reasonable prices now, buy a Core 2 Duo 6600; the extra 2MB over the 6400 helps significantly, and the 6700 is almost double the price with maybe 10% more performance.
If you're looking to make a very cheap but fast dual-core system, buy an ECS-C19A motherboard and a Pentium D 805 CPU (as featured in the well-known Tom's Hardware article). It'll cost you just $200 for the motherboard and CPU combined, and with just air cooling you can overclock it from stock 2.6GHz to 3.6GHz with virtually no effort (just change one setting in the BIOS, it will take no more than a minute). Once overclocked it will be nearly as fast as an FX-62, for a fifth of the price. If you don't want to overclock, in this price range the Pentium D 9XX series and the mid-range Athlon 64 X2's are reasonable choices.
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by