Core Duo vs Core 2 Duo: Is the 1.66 GHz Faster?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Quadruple Bypass
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Core
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the performance comparison between the Core Duo T2250 and the Core 2 Duo rated at 1.66 GHz. Generally, the Core 2 Duo is considered faster due to its dual-core architecture, which allows it to handle multiple tasks more efficiently, especially for general use in Windows or Linux environments. The Core Duo processors, while also dual-core, are based on older architecture, whereas the Core 2 Duo benefits from improved design, higher front-side bus (FSB) speeds, and larger L2 cache sizes. For most applications, users will notice better performance with the Core 2 Duo unless running highly CPU-intensive tasks. The conversation also touches on the importance of considering the entire laptop's specifications, including graphics capabilities, battery life, and intended use, rather than focusing solely on processor speed.
Quadruple Bypass
Messages
120
Reaction score
0
ok here's the deal. i had a computer with a Core Duo T2250 1.73 GHz processor. a replacement computer that a company is sending me is a core 2 duo rated at 1.66 ghz. i told them to find another one because the processor is slower than my old one. but they called me back saying that the 1.66 core 2 duo is faster than the 1.73 core duo. is this true?
 
Last edited:
Computer science news on Phys.org
Yes - (generally) the core 2 duo is dual core, it acts (mostly) like having 2 CPUs.

For general windows/linux stuff using multiple programs it will be faster.
For certain unusual cases it isn't.
 
Thank you kind sir. Now i can relax.
 
mgb_phys said:
Yes - (generally) the core 2 duo is dual core, it acts (mostly) like having 2 CPUs.

For general windows/linux stuff using multiple programs it will be faster.
For certain unusual cases it isn't.

X2. The Core Duo processors are also dual core though. The main difference is the upgraded design architecture... where the Core Duos were based off the P4's and the Core 2 Duos are a completely new architecture. That's when Intel started offering chips with higher FSB speeds and greater L2 cache sizes. Unless your running programs that are CPU intensive, you won't notice much of a difference.
 
Sorry - I got the Core solo/Core duo/Core 2 duo mixed up.
It was easier before Intel had a marketing dept and they just used numbers!
 
mgb_phys said:
Sorry - I got the Core solo/Core duo/Core 2 duo mixed up.
It was easier before Intel had a marketing dept and they just used numbers!

no apology needed... without thinking it's almost a definite that i'll get them mixed up.:biggrin: I know exactly what you mean about the marketing. You know it's bad when you have to learn the names of a new line of products, just because the company doesn't like the sound of the old name.

I'm pretty sure Intels marketing department at least has a good sense of humor!
 
B. Elliott said:
I'm pretty sure Intels marketing department at least has a good sense of humor!
After the multi-coloured cleanroom suit ads - it's obvious they have either a sense of humour or brain damage,.

It used to be said that the architecture of the 8086 proved that Intel didn't do drug testing.
 
possibly useful:
http://www.breakitdownblog.com/choosing-a-core-duo-or-core-2-duo-laptop/

I would include a comparison of L2-cache [and video card option], in addition to processor-speed comparisons between core duo and core 2 duo [both dual-core cpus].
(If you need the 64-bit features, choose the core 2 duo.)

As usual... look at the whole laptop... because the best choice depends on what you need it to do [computational task, portability, battery-life, reliability, etc...]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
quoth robphy
portability, battery-life, reliability, etc...]

or gaming -- which is another beast unto itself. Good gaming boxes are almost always overkill for anything else. You really did not mention your intentions re: said box with new chipset.

Consider: Some high end graphics cards have almost as much memory and cpu oomph as most base systems... and the base usually needs to outclass the graphics card.

Your intentions?
 
Last edited:
  • #10
jim mcnamara said:
quoth robphy
Consider: Some high end graphics cards have almost as much memory and cpu oomph as most base systems... and the base usually needs to outclass the graphics card.

They gotten even further along than then just being compared to base systems... closer to scalable high-end server boards!:eek:

Revolutionary NVIDIA® Tesla™ high performance computing (HPC) solutions arm scientists, engineers and other technical professionals with the power to solve previously unsolvable problems. A dedicated, high performance GPU computing solution, Tesla brings supercomputing power to any workstation or server and to standard, CPU-based server clusters.

http://www.nvidia.com/object/tesla_computing_solutions.html
 

Similar threads

Back
Top