How much faster is 2.0GHz than 1.83GHz?

Answer 1

It depends on which processors you are talking about. In some cases if they are different types, the 1.83 could be faster. It would help if you mentined which two specific CPUs you were talking about.

Answer 2

the ghz doznt matter anymore you go by the cache and the make of the cpu on the new laptops beware look at the display models and turn them on and off and see how fast they boot the cpus they say are faster are slower and the new laptops cant read some dvds and cds you have to use a usb cd drive to install some programs and dvd movies skip or lock up so before you register or send your mail in rebates test all these things before your stuck with a laptop you dont really want

Answer 3

17MHz but that's just the clock speed. The biggest difference isn't in the clock speed, but in the Front Side Bus (FSB) speed. If the FSB on your motherboard is only 400MHz and your processor is 3.6GHz, you are still only going to be able to move data at 400MHz. The fastest FSB commercially available is 1066MHz.

Welcome to the wonderful world of computers.

When you are ready to buy a new system, go to www.stupidcheapcomputers.net. I buy all of my stuff from them, and everything is Vista ready.

I bought a complete, new system from them with a warranty for LESS than it would cost me to build it myself or order a custom one from the manufacturer. You can use my frequent buyer code: ATX926. That will get an additional 10% discount at checkout.

I have NEVER had any problems with anything that they have sold me and their customer service is outstanding. Those guys blow my mind.

Good luck!

Answer 4

They are almost identical, really. And, I have an AMD Thunderbird CPU 2.0 chip here, that is really fast (running dual boot XP Pro and PCLinuxOS) that is actually clocked to run at 1.667Ghz.

Mostly, the speeds are smoke and mirrors. Overall processing speed is totally screwed if you are in any Microsoft OS! Especially in network protocol, where Microsoft has to interpret and run BSD TCP/IP, to get on any network...

Then, MS screwed up so many of their codecs... But, when they paid for all their piracy of University Copyrights to the codecs, and got some proper retro-programming, it sped up a tad.

So, you need to have the latest patches, and all of them. Even the ones that screw up your system. Later ones supposedly 'fix' those...

In Mac OS X and/or BSD, or in Linux, the benchmarks for intensive processing run upto 50X faster! Only in Quake III at excessive framerates over about 20-25 frames per minute, does the speed drop to about 8X faster for all the 'Nixes, over the M$ bloatware.

That is the concensus of Anandtech, PCGamer Magazine, Tom's Hardware, and my Apple/Mac Factory Certified repair crew, since about 2000. We seem to have this discussion about once each month. We know all the tweaks for Linux, BSD, and M$.

But, then, you must burden the Micro$loth system with some 7 different anti- whatever programs, to fight spam, Trojans, Bots, w0rms, and the "114,000 Microsoft Virus Definitions".

Most Quake servers run on Linux. All 45,000 of the Microsoft.com, Hotmail.com, MSN.com and Microsoft Corp. Servers run Linux.

Yahoo.com runs FreeBSD. Google.com runs Linux. All the major web presences run behind thousands of Akamai Linux servers for protection from DDOS attacks. Most ( over 78%) of all Internet servers, run Linux or BSD, or another 'Nix 'flavor'.

I run Mac OS 9 or X, and Linux, http://pclinuxos.com on my 80 system network. I am behind hardware firewalls. http://ipcop.org

My children all run live streaming videos, flash games, and serious surfing on this network, at high through-put rates. Average download speeds exceed 120 kbs during the day , and, now, over-night here, they hit 800 kbs on large ISOs of Linux from the http://livecdlist.com websites.

Answer 5

2 - 1.83. The difference for most users is negligible.

Answer 6

much faster

Answer 7

.17ghz