To most people with home PCs, the difference between the two is is not real important...YET.
Essentially a CPU does the computing. All operations in a computer essentially work around a CPU adding, subtracting and moving numbers from one memory position to another (and some other operations that aren;t important for now). Since there may be a lot of computing to do at one time, there is only two ways to do this:
1) Get a faster CPU to do more operations per second. This is a traditional solution that drives PC sales over the last decades.
2) Get more CPUs to do the work simultaneously. Use a dual processor (2 CPUs), or Quad(4 CPUs) or more.
The trick in deploying the second solution to a PC maker is that the program or programs must be able to support the multi processor. Simply put, how does your Doom gaming program decide to split its computing between the two and combine the results on a timely basis? OR How does Doom know to use processor A while processor B uses MS Word? I think you get the point.
This is evolving for home use in the CPU board, industrial applications have been using it for years. I should note that in the graphics board that controls the screen display, high end graphics cards have builtin multiprocessors for many years. These run independent of your primary computer CPU to take the load off it. So in a sense,, we have been running multiprocessor computers for years. Each is dedicated to it's task.
One way to visualize this is to build three cars.
1) One with a single 3 liter engine
2) One with a single 5 liter engine
3) One with two 5 liter engines
Which is better...depends on your use and what you have to support their use.
Which would you want to use for commuting to work?
Which would you use for fun?
Which would you use for the drag strip and pure power hauling?
For the #3, we can;t just use this on the street without some special considerations likely to maximize the use. Such with multi-processors, but that changes quickly as the software catches up....
To answer your question specifically, 1.83 single processor is the same speed as the dual, but has more computing capacity.
2006-08-06 07:38:27
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I highly recommend getting the duo. Basically intel has released a whole new lines of processors. The intel core duo/solo, is designed for laptops and mobile computers, while the intel core2duo is designed for desktops. What I am wondering though is that since you are probably considering getting only a cpu, that you must have a desktop computer, which means that you would much prefer having the intel core2duo or (conroe). It is much faster. Neways back to your question. The intel core duo is a dual core processor, which means that it could do twice as much as the single processor at the same time. What it is is a cpu that has two cores. So you could be playing a game on one core such as counter-strike, and on the other core you could be encoding videos for your ipod, and they wont be interferring with eachother. And also since more games are being designed for dual core processors you could get the full speed of both cores on one game. So its like double performance.
1.83ghz intel core solo vs 1.83ghz x 2 intel core duo, get it.
It costs more, but its way faster with the same efficiency.
Even next generations game consoles are using multiple cores. The xbox 360 had 3 cores each running at 3.2ghz while the ps3 had one core running at 3.2ghz and simply 7 minicores!
I hoped i solved your question :) Give me the ten points lol.
2006-08-06 14:20:36
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes, the are faster because you have 2 cores processing information at the same time.
dual core or core duo means 1 processor with 2 cores so it acts like 2 processors.
single core processor is just that - 1 processor with 1 core.
2006-08-06 14:15:56
·
answer #3
·
answered by myste 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I may be wrong, but I heard a duo performs much better for multitasking and supporting many programs that can otherwise drag your system down considerably. I have a dual core processor and it works really well. If you have the money, duo of course would be better.
2006-08-06 14:14:32
·
answer #4
·
answered by ♪Grillon♫ 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
the benefits of having a duo is that you have two processors, so programs can run faster.
you only need it if you do very intensive video editing, and you have some extra $$$ to pork out.
2006-08-06 14:16:25
·
answer #5
·
answered by Mike-Q 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I am not into that thing so sorry.
2006-08-06 14:14:07
·
answer #6
·
answered by Mickey 2
·
0⤊
0⤋