Intel Core 2

the 1.5 dual core can handle 2 threads at the same time and 3.0 single core can only handle 1 thread both of them switch threads rapidly if you have CPU-z you will find that the only difference in number of threads (the number of cores in single core is 2)

short answer : the dual core is faster in multitasks

the single core is faster in single task (like most of games)

This is a good processors. You will have to have a good graphics card to run today games. This processor is not the best so you might find that games will run a bit slow.

I have the hexacore AMD x6 1035T (2.6GHz) and a fairly pathetic graphics card (1.5GB Nvidia GeForce GT230) (don't get confused by the large amount of video RAM, the rest of the card is pathetic) and I can play Mass Effect 2, NFS Hot Pursuit, GTA4 etc. comfortably (not the best graphics settings for some of the games, but still pretty darn good).

However, if this processor you mention is in a laptop, beware. Unless it is a laptop made for gaming, it is unlikely that it will have a good graphics chip for gaming. Intel integrated graphics are generally useless (portal 2 runs fine, but GTA4 is unplayable) (unlikely that you would have Intel graphics as it's an AMD processor). Read some reviews on the graphics card/chip that comes with your PC, but if it's a desktop PC, you could probably buy a better graphics card if needs be.

But yeah, a quad core 2.2GHz processor is definitely above the minimum requirements for most, if not all, current PC games.

Not exactly. The T2330 is almost the same as the T5250 except for a few things. The T2330 has only 1mb of L2 cache(as opposed to 2mb on the T5250), and actually has a higher clock speed at 1.6ghz(the T5250 is 1.5ghz). The T2330 can actually perform a bit faster than the T5250 in certain processes, but for the most part should perform about equal to the T5250. The lack of cache isn't noticeable in everyday usage and only really shows if you have multiple(more than 5) programs open and going at full load, or are running very demanding games. Even then, the difference isn't on a large scale. For comparison's sake, the T5250 has a 667mhz Front Side Bus and a 9x multiplier while the T2330 has a 533mhz FSB and a 12x multiplier. Both have a TDP of 35 watts, are built on 65 nanometer process, and are Merom cores(Merom-2M cores, specifically). They are actually made from the from the same silicon imprint, but after manufacturing are differentiated by either defects in cache or some other problem causing them to not express full capability, which would be a T7250. "Pentium dual core" has become Intel's economy line name, however it's every bit as much a Core 2 Duo as an officially labelled C2D, except for half the cache.

hello!

dual beam oscilloscope has 2 filament in crt tube that made 2 independ beam.

but tahe dual trace oscope has 1 beam and made 2 channel indicate on screen by high frquency switcher. it mean,one beam alterative swtch between ch1 and ch2 to indicate 2 channel waveform.

excuse me for bad english knowledge!!

bye

its 64 bit

No. While at one time, long long ago, AMD and Intel processors could be used on the same board with the same chipset, this hasn't been true since the Pentium II was introduced. Nowadays, the processors use very different sockets and chipsets, and there's no way to interchange them.

Intel Core i2 is my friend's laptop..it is special edition.from the store merbau sempak. paya jaras tau x? ha dekat2 situ la.

because it is so powerful. it can be sell in malaysia. only in merbau sempak.

TQ~

The "GHz" rating specifies the clock speed, or frequency, at which a processor operates. Generally, a processor with a higher clock speed will make for a faster computer. If the processors are from the same brand and family (e.g. Intel Core 2 or AMD Phenom II), The 2.13 GHz processor will be slightly faster. Take note that if the processors are not of the same brand (Intel vs. AMD) or of the same family (Intel Core 2 vs. Intel Celeron), then the clock speed (GHz) becomes less relevent and may not be the best rating for speed. For Intel, the best processors are Core 2 Quad or Core 2 Duo, followed by Pentium D, Celeron D, and Atom, from best to worst. For AMD, the list goes like this: Phenom II (only available for desktops), Turion (only available for notebooks), Athlon 64, and Sempron. Bottom line: Iif the processors you are looking at are of the same type, there will be very little difference between 2.0 and 2.13GHz processors. The 2.13 would be just a bit faster. If they are not of the same type, the difference will be greater.

I have no idea..

The AMD K6-III and early Athlon processors are roughly equivalent in speed and performance. Via C7 processors, although released much later, are close in terms of performance to a Pentium III.

Yes quad core is beeter than i 5..I used both but quad core gives you more flexebility like more expemdeble memory.graphic cards etc....Quad core handles more load of application as comapre to i 5...Thnaks

Nothing, but there is at least 1, 2, or 3 enemy Intel items on each campaign mission, 22 Enemy Intel items gets you an achievement that is worth 25 Gamerscore and if you get them all (For Xbox it's 45 items), you get an achievement that is 40 Gamerscore.

T6500 is faster and also, the T6500 is not "core duo" like the T4200 but "Core 2 Duo" (newer)

Yes. I am currently running x64 Vista OS without problems.

No. The number of cores don't necessarily correlate with practical speed. The efficient operation of both cores depends on the operating system and the software you use. For single-threaded tasks, a faster clock speed would help you more than additional cores.

36

Both processors are very reliable but the main difference is with performance. I currently have 2 computers with Intel Pentium and 2 with AMD. The Intel Pentium are more geared to the buisness side of the computer world and the AMD are much better for gaming applications, even though they do a fine job on the buisness side as well. It really comes down to one's preference and the type of applications the computer will be running.

The 3.2 GHz processor is slightly better. Please note that all 3.2 GHz Pentium 4s support Hyperthreading, so the 3.2 GHz isn't in any way disadvantaged.

The rough equivalent would be the Intel Atom CPU, a low-power, low-performance single-core microprocessor used in netbooks and supermicro PC's.

This is the question i had to ask myself recently, when i bought a new PC.

I went for core 2 duo myself. Why? because i investigated on it and got just one answer from everywhere: core 2 duo is much more efficient.. its like newer is better... but we are here comparing CPU(s) with diffrent speeds. For me speeds 3.0ghz and 2.33ghz don't make much of a diffence.

So i'd say it depends on individual, ask yourself .. is 3.0ghz really your minimum requirement?? if no, go with core 2 duo, because its better.

The 2.66 Ghz Quad core is the better processor. the quad core has a top manufacture speed "no over clocking" of 10.64 Ghz and the core duo and 6.66 Ghz manufacture speed. UNLESS the core duo has a wopping load of cache speed witch is a hole nothing story

The will depend on the benchmark and the particular chips selected to benchmark. A 1.6 GHz Intel Atom is slightly faster than a 1.1 GHz Pentium III on a SuperPi benchmark. A 1.4 GHz Pentium III would thus likely beat it. In a multi-threaded benchmark, the Atom would likely beat the Pentium III, due to the Atom's inclusion of Hyperthreading.

A multiplexer breaks large amounts of data into smaller chunks so that the processor can manipulate it more easily and give back the processed data in pieces when it finishes processing it. A multiplexer is also responsible for breaking up the data if you have more than one processor or core (as in dual core) in your computer.