English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

3.2 giga hetz

2007-04-18 18:47:59 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Computers & Internet Hardware Laptops & Notebooks

mathematically they are both the same

3.2 ghz

2007-04-19 07:27:23 · update #1

7 answers

The 3.2 will be faster as almost all apps are not optimised to use 2 cores. However you will be able to boil eggs on it too, and it will be a lot larger, heavier and noisier :)

2007-04-18 19:10:35 · answer #1 · answered by laptoptips 1 · 0 1

First of all, I'm guessing you don't mean two separate Core Duo processors. That would be like 4*1.6 GHz, and in most circumstances would be much quicker than a single 3.2 Ghz. One Core Duo processor has two cores, both running at the same frequency (1.6 GHz, in this example).

If I'm not mistaken, the answer depends upon what sort of computing you are doing. If you are using programs which are written to support multi-threading or you normally run a lot of programs at once, the multiple cores would be an advantage. However, if you are doing mostly single-threaded computing (intensive graphics rendering, gaming, computing pi to a trillion places, etc) then the single processor would be quicker. This is because a single thread can use all of the 3.2 GHz while a single thread can't do that on the Duo. For most users though, I would recommend the multiple core approach.

2007-04-19 02:18:43 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Well mathematics has very little to do with it. For one thing, you can't simply multiply the 1.6 by 2 in a Core Duo, it doesn't work that way. You have two 1.6 Ghz processors, which means they can do two tasks at once at 1.6Ghz, but not one task at 3.2Ghz.

Secondly, Ghz do not translate directly accross different processors. Ghz simply refers to how fast the clock cycles are. It doesn't take into account how much cache is present, how fast the FSB is, and most importantly here, how much data is sent every clock cycle. Think of it simply like this, a 3.2 Ghz would have exactly two clock cycles for every 1 that a 1.6Ghz would have. But if the 1.6 sends 10 pieces of data every clock cycle, while the 3.2Ghz only sent 3 pieces of data, which of the two would end up moving more data.

Hope that explained it, if you have further question feel free to email me, its in my profile.

2007-04-19 18:08:19 · answer #3 · answered by mysticman44 7 · 0 0

I am assuming the 3.2 GHz processor is on the old Pentium with the crappy NetBurst microarchitecture.

The 1.6 GHz C2D has a much better core called the Conroe. This core runs many more commands per clock cycle than the older cores. Also, with many programs multithreaded now, the C2D is the clear winner.

Not to mention power consumtion, heat, and overclocking abilities are vastly superior on the new chips.

2007-04-19 02:02:25 · answer #4 · answered by JeffChels 1 · 0 0

From what I know, what's faster may depend on what application the user is testing for speed.

If the developer programmed the application to take advantage of multi-threading/multi-processors, then the Core Duo may run faster. If it isn't multi-processor aware, then the faster single processor may run faster.

2007-04-19 02:04:05 · answer #5 · answered by xoxo 4 · 0 0

3.2 Ghz will be much better than C2D 1.6 GHz. 1.6 GHz is too less wheather dual core or not

2007-04-19 06:50:03 · answer #6 · answered by K c 3 · 0 1

That purely depends on how large of a cannon you shoot them out of. Bigger Cannon = Faster projectile, every time.

2007-04-19 03:06:02 · answer #7 · answered by dogpoop 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers