Jump to content

Welcome to Geeks to Go - Register now for FREE

Geeks To Go is a helpful hub, where thousands of volunteer geeks quickly serve friendly answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts. Register now to gain access to all of our features, it's FREE and only takes one minute. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more.

Create Account How it Works
Photo

Processors


  • Please log in to reply

#1
kwasi

kwasi

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts
I was wondering how you determined which are better. For example I thought it was by GHz but I also thought Core 2 Duo was better than an old Celeron but one of my computers has "Intel Celeron 2.20 GHz 2.20 GHz" listed in System Properties(Windows Key+Pause/Break) but another has "Intel Core 2 CPU 6300 @ 1.86 Ghz 1.86 GHz" listed.

So can anyone explain which is better, why, and how to know.

Thanks in advance.
  • 0

Advertisements


#2
jt1990

jt1990

    Member 1K

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,519 posts
The Core 2 Duo is much MUCH better then the Celeron chip. The Core 2 Duo is dual core CPU, which has two cores and both cores run at 1.86GHz, with a combined speed of 3.72GHz, 1.52GHz faster then the Celeron. Also, the Core 2 Duo will far out perform the Celeron because the technology is newer and better (in my understanding, at least.)
  • 0

#3
kwasi

kwasi

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts
So would a Core 2 Quad 2.0 GHz really be 8.0 GHz?
  • 0

#4
kamille316

kamille316

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 604 posts

So would a Core 2 Quad 2.0 GHz really be 8.0 GHz?

No, it doesn't work that way.
It means you have 4 cores running at 2.0GHz, it is not combined.
It is the reason some people say that a Core 2 Duo 3.0GHz is better than Core 2 Quad 2.4GHz because its not just about the cores, its also about the speed (especially for those that uses stock).
  • 0

#5
kwasi

kwasi

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts
Ok, thanks.

Another question, would an upgrade to Pentium 4 from Celeron 2.20 GHz make a noticeable difference?
  • 0

#6
Neil Jones

Neil Jones

    Member 5k

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,476 posts

Ok, thanks.

Another question, would an upgrade to Pentium 4 from Celeron 2.20 GHz make a noticeable difference?



Significantly. Especially if its to a Core 2 Duo.
  • 0

#7
stettybet0

stettybet0

    Trusted Tech

  • Technician
  • 2,579 posts
I think you misread that one a bit Neil. I believe the OP is asking about an upgrade from a 2.2ghz Celeron to a Pentium 4. In this case, assuming the Celeron is Pentium 4 based (as the OP referred to it as "old"), a Pentium 4 of similar or higher speed will show a boost in single-threaded applications. However, you won't see too much of an improvement in programs designed to utilize 2 or more CPU cores, such as modern games or video/audio encoding applications. Also, in your everyday computer use (internet browsing, office applications), you wouldn't notice any difference.

This relates back to your original question. An application that is programmed to only use one CPU core will run just as well on a 2.4ghz single-core CPU, a 2.4ghz dual-core CPU, or a 2.4ghz quad-core CPU, assuming all other variables are the same. However, an application that is designed to use two CPU cores will run much better on a 2.4ghz dual-core CPU compared to the 2.4ghz single-core CPU, again assuming all other variables are the same. Those other variables are things like Front Side Bus and Cache, and newer processors typically have an advantage in both of these things. There are also differences in things like architecture and instruction sets, which is why although an AMD Phenom may look good on paper, they are easily bested by Intel's Core 2 lineup.
  • 0






Similar Topics

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

As Featured On:

Microsoft Yahoo BBC MSN PC Magazine Washington Post HP