2.3 dual core because it has virtually 2X2.3Ghz processors, which is equal to a 4.6 Ghz processor.
But mind you, it works a dual core processor only in Vista, Linux and Mac not in XP. In XP, it functions as a single core processor (2.3GHz).
2007-06-02 21:51:06
·
answer #1
·
answered by maddy 4
·
0⤊
2⤋
A Pentium 4 3Ghz laptop is old technology but it is also a good space heater (runs HOT).
The new dual cores are great for power users, otherwise the 2nd core would just be idle most of the time. If you want best bang for the buck, consider the fastest Intel Yonah (Celeron M450 or Core Solo T1400). Combine it w/ at least 1Gb RAM and ATI or Nvidia graphics. You will be surprised at what it can do. Beats most business desktops.
2007-06-03 02:33:05
·
answer #2
·
answered by Karz 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
The 2.3 Ghz AMD. AMD's are generally about twice as fast as Pentium 4's for day to day use (so 2.3 ghz would be equivalent to a 4.6 ghz pentium 4) and the dual core part makes it great for multi-tasking and gives it incredible performance on multi-core optimized programs.
2007-06-02 21:35:08
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I prefer the Dual Core.... you're gonna spend a pretty penny on that 2.3 DC though.
2007-06-02 21:29:58
·
answer #4
·
answered by George W 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
That'll be alright once you're recording the Xbox and doing a sprint rapid snappy modifying that may not require plenty hardcore rendering. nevertheless i'd decide in for a center i5 and 6gb RAM a minimum of once you would be recording laptop video games with Fraps or doing issues with Aftereffects and so on.
2016-11-03 12:15:21
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The dual core one as it works as two 2.3 Ghz so it will be like 4.0-4.6Ghz therefore faster and recommended.
2007-06-02 21:31:09
·
answer #6
·
answered by Daniel M 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
i would get 2.3 dual core
2007-06-02 21:29:40
·
answer #7
·
answered by fang 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
2,3 dual core
2007-06-02 22:38:12
·
answer #8
·
answered by ... 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
if you throw it out a car at 100mph there the same speed
your question is to vague
2007-06-02 21:31:34
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋