Is a single core of 3.4ghz better than double core of 2.8ghz?

Answer 1

Depends on what you intend to use the computer for. The way it was explained to me by an IT tech where I work, there isn't alot of software that can benefit from using a dual core processor yet, (Windows Vista, a few high tech CAD programs, and some graphic intensive video games are currently all that can really benefit), so unless you plan on being up on the latest and greatest computer technology, a dual core won't do much good for the typical computer user at least for another year or so while software is developed for it's use. A 3.4ghz single core processor would be more than adequate for most computer users.

I recently purchased an AMD 2.8ghz single core processor over an Intel 2.1ghz dual core, quite simply because when i tested both computers at the store, I found the single core processor to suit my needs much better and seemed to have a faster response time.

I'd say go with whichever suits your needs and budget most efficientlly.

Answer 2

No, a dual core 2.8 ghz is much better than a single core 3.4 ghz.

My notebooks 1.6ghz Core 2 Duo does a 1M SuperPI in 22 secs compared to my P4 Single Core 3.4 ghz @ 3.8 ghz which does it in about 38 secs.

It also depends on what kind of applications you'll be running though.

Answer 3

It depends. Utilization of both cores in a dual core processor is dependent on the software that uses it. The majority of software out is not designed for dual core processing. Dual core is the way to for the future but right now the support isn't there. In gaming, the performance of single core processors can eclipse that of dual cores since many game developers are reluctant to program for them because of the difficulty involved. A few patches have been released to allow games to take full advantage of dc processors though.

Answer 4

In terms of power consumption the Core 2 Duo is much better.

Answer 5

Not a chance.