http://www.netaffilia.com/ad/electronics/frys/i/2007/04/25/24199.html
http://latimes.p2ionline.com/shoppingchannel/popup/index.aspx?WebStoryID=12070944&type=adv&area=ROP&adid=1667656&pop=1
the first one is "energy efficient," can anyone explain it to me? how much can I actually save?
The first one was on sale yesterday, so it is gone. now I can only buy the second one for a lower price, the first one has about 2.x ghz, the second is at 3.2 ghz.
i wonder if the second is actually faster than the first one? the first one has dual core though.
2007-04-27 07:34:53 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous in Computers & Internet ➔ Hardware ➔ Other - Hardware
The first one is definitely better. It is "energy efficient" because it is a dual core but consumes electricity just like a single core (65 watts).
The second one (a P4 Prescott) seems fast, but getting to be old technology. It consumes 84W that is why AMD fanboys call it PresHOT.
2007-04-27 14:25:44 · answer #1 · answered by Karz 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I recomend to buy the dual core. Please refer here http://www.intel.com/products/processor/coreduo/. It has much more advantages than the 1st one. And also, AMD is good for gaming and graphic.
2007-04-27 14:50:56 · answer #2 · answered by xArz 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋