2007-09-17 12:06:50 · 7 answers · asked by bill m 1 in Computers & Internet ➔ Hardware ➔ Desktops
try this link.
It depends on the benchmark - a fairly even split on those I've just looked at on Tomshardware site...
Select the applications in which you have the most interest ...
The Core 2 Duo has the edge in the following benchmarks:
AVG scan
Clone DVD
iTunes
Lame
ppt to pdf conversion
PCMARK 2005 memory
Photoshop
Prey
Quake
Serious Sam 2
Supreme Commander
Warhammer
WinRAR
at Tomshardware, and the Quad takes the rest, with data missing for Divx and Xvid, but Pinnacle and Wind Exp were close or equal...
So - it depends what you want it for, assuming the benchmarks give a reasonable reflection of normal usage.
[Edit]: Just checked the prices at http://www.scan.co.uk/ - nothing between them there either - £170 each ± 80p
2007-09-17 12:14:58 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You should all ready know the answer the 2 quad is 2.4ghz and the 2 duo is 3ghz..so that should say that the 2 duo is faster but ghz is not the only thing that maters in a cpu (but since both of these mobos are Intel and are almost exactly the same the only thing left to look at is ghz...and when it comes to ghz more is better) but I would recommend buying the 2 quad...first of all it is cheaper that means you will have some extra money that you should spend on a CPU fan...once you have a good fan you can "overclock" that 2.4..to about 3.2....I hope that helped (If you are new to computers and don't know how to overclock and don't want to bother with it just buy the 2 duo..) but if you want the most bang for you buck..go with the overclocking feature....I hope this helps :)
2007-09-17 19:26:25 · answer #2 · answered by cttaylor01 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Is simple maths.
The core 2 duo is 2x3ghz so thats 6ghz
The 2.4 quad is 4x2.4 so thats 9.6.
The quad is far faster, not only because it is 3.3 Ghz faster in processor speed but because it can better handle multitasking and seperate tasks far better than a dual core. Front side bus speeds can't make up for a 3gz performance advantage, it would however depend on the amount of RAM, your video card size and other factors but in terms of pure performance the quad would easily be faster.
Think of it like a 2 wheel drive car racing a 4 wheel drive with a slightly smaller engine. Even though the 4 wheel drive has less power, it can use it on all 4 wheels at once whereas the 2 wheel drives power cant all get though to the 2 tyres so it ends up being slower despite having more power.
2007-09-18 04:43:18 · answer #3 · answered by The Shadow 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Invariably, when it comes to computer components, the higher the numbers are, the higher the performance. Whether or not one or the other is the "fastest" depends on how the systems were tested and what benchmarks were used. Unless you're doing some extensive CAD work or some kind of super gaming, you'd probably notice a negligible difference between the two.
2007-09-17 19:19:07 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Right the Qualcore is faster in case You use the same graphics card and same quantity of RAM the Frontsidebus doesn't make much remarkable difference. Put in the maximum amount of RAM, preferably 4 GB and it will be faster than any Mercedes-McLaren!
2007-09-17 19:14:50 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
E6850 is unbeatable when comparison is at stock speeds. However, when processors are overclocked, Q6600 is KING. AND I'm NOT guessing. Check it out here:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q6600_8.html#sect0
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q6600_9.html#sect0
2007-09-17 21:23:53 · answer #6 · answered by Karz 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well the 2 quad is a quad core CPU so I would have to say it was faster.
2007-09-17 19:11:06 · answer #7 · answered by MajorTom © 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋