dual core vs core 2 duo

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bubba82

Distinguished
May 15, 2008
15
0
18,510
like the topic says ... whats the difference between an intel dual core processor and the core2duo? they are both dual core but yet the core 2 costs more and such...
 

Mondoman

Splendid
A dual core processor has two cores (essentially, two CPUs on one chip). Core2Duo is a specific dual-core processor design. Thus, all Core2Duo CPUs are dual-core CPUs, but not all Intel dual-core CPUs are Core2Duo designs.

Essentially all current Intel consumer dual-core CPUs today are Core2Duo designs. They have different names, but vary mostly in terms of their FSB speed (mostly, how quickly data can be transferred to/from RAM) and in the amount of cache memory in the CPU (cache memory is a relatively small amount of high-speed memory on the CPU chip that stores frequently-used data and instructions; it can improve performance 4-15% or so, depending on the amount).
 

Bubba82

Distinguished
May 15, 2008
15
0
18,510
so essentially there is no difference between the 2 beside the name? like for ex. are c2d more powerful than dc?
 

seboj

Distinguished
Mar 31, 2008
403
0
18,790
Like Mondoman said, dual core is a generic term representing 2 cores on a single die. Likewise, quad core represents 4 cores on a single die.

This is different from Core Duo and Core 2 Duo. These are micro-architectures for how the CPU operates. Core was Intel's first dual core architecture, and Core 2 is the "sequel" to Core.

So you see, a CPU can be a Core Duo with 2 cores, or it can be a Core 2 Duo with 2 cores. They are both dual core -- the difference is the micro-architecture.

Simply put, Core 2 is a faster, more powerful micro-architecture.
 

monst0r

Distinguished
Mar 31, 2007
444
0
18,780
Ok, to sum this up with as little confusion as possible:
A dual-core processor is just that, a processor with 2 cores. A Core2Duo is a specific model from Intel. The Pentium Dual Core is based off of the "core" architecture. AMD also has dual-core processors, the X2 line. These aren't comparable by clock speed alone because they are made on a different architecture. seboj and Mondoman summed up some more specific details.

Example would be:
Pentium Dual Core- 2.0GHz 1MB L2 Cache 200Mhz FSB(dual-core)
Core2Duo- 1.86GHz 2MB L2 Cache 266MHz FSB(dual-core)
Athlon X2 5000 BE- 3.0GHz 1MB L2 Cache 1GHz HTT(dual-core)
Core2Extreme- 3.2GHz 2x4MB L2 Cache 333MHz FSB(quad-core)
 

seboj

Distinguished
Mar 31, 2008
403
0
18,790


Heh, I didn't mean to say that Core was the first dual core labeling, just that it came before Core 2.
 

Bubba82

Distinguished
May 15, 2008
15
0
18,510
so this processor here :

Intel Pentium Dual Core E2200 Processor BX80557E2200 - 2.20GHz, 1MB Cache, 800MHz FSB, Allendale, Dual Core, Retail, Socket 775, Processor with Fan

is weaker than this processor here? :

Intel Core 2 Duo E6320 Processor HH80557PH0364M - 1.86GHz, 4MB Cache, 1066MHz FSB, Conroe, Dual-Core, OEM, Socket 775, Processor
 

kamel5547

Distinguished
Jan 4, 2006
585
0
18,990


Nitpicking here.... it does not represent 2 cores on a single die, but rather two cores in a single package. The early dual and quad cores were two dies in one package (and some of them may still be for all I know). Mainly a technical difference which has no real impact on the correctness of the information you provided.
 

seboj

Distinguished
Mar 31, 2008
403
0
18,790
Hm, I may need to research, but I thought they began as 2 cores 1 die.

I did see that I mistyped, however, about the quads:

Intel's first quads are 2 cores per 2 dies in 1 package.
AMD's quads are "native" in that they contain 4 cores on 1 die.

 

Zorg

Splendid
May 31, 2004
6,732
0
25,790
They are both core2 architecture. The only difference is the 1MB VS 4MB cache and the 800 VS 1066 FSB. If you don't have the cash it will do.
 

yadge

Distinguished
Mar 26, 2007
443
0
18,790
Ok. So I'm pretty much repeating what a lot of other people said. But I'll try to explain it.

A few years ago, Intels best processor was the Pentium 4. It had one processor inside of it. Then, Intel put two of those into one package to make a dual core processor. This merely means that there are two cores on one processor.

So there were two Pentium 4's inside the processor. A little less than two years ago, Intel introduced a new processor. It was a much more efficient design, and it came with two cores in one package by itself. Instead of putting two different processors in one package, it was just built like that natively. These new processors, called the Core 2 Duos beat the older Pentium D's (the dual core Pentium 4's) by a lot.

Since the introduction of the Core 2 Duos, there have been a few less powerful processors introduced, that were slightly different and at a lower price, but still based off of the same architecture. So, they were still dual core processors, but not necassarily a Core 2 Duo.

These less expensive processors typlically had a smaller amount of cache, and a lower Front Side Bus standard.

The models that only have 1mb of cache are named "Dual-Core" prrocessors, to seperate them as having less cache. It really means nothing, other than the less cache.

So, with the 65nm products, we have:
The Conroe Core 2 Duo- 4mb of cache and 1066fsb
The Allendale Core 2 Duo- 2mb of cache and 800fsb
The Allendale Dual-Core- 1mb of cahce and 800fsb
The Celeron Conroe-L single core- 512kb of cache and 800fsb

There are also corresponding 45nm parts, but those are not important in this discussion.

So pretty much these are all based off of the same architecture, but are named differently based on their different features. Pentium D dual core processors are not even close in comparison, and are not worth getting at this time.

About your question, with the only difference in those processors being the clock speed and the amount of cache, one will do better than the other depending on what you are doing. I think I would go with the E2200, because I think the higher clock speed would probably be more beneficial. And also it is a lot cheaper.

But it also depends on if you are overclocking or not.

AMD also has it's dual core processors, but I do not know the timeline of when those came into play, as when I started following computers the Penium D's and the Athlon X2's were already out.

Also I should mention that the Celeron I talked about is a single core processor, I think it has one of the cores turned off.
 

royalcrown

Distinguished
He's not gonna know about overclocking, yes, for games an e2200 is weaker than an e6300 because games like cache a lot more than a little speed. Also the 6600 are "stronger than 6300's".
 

yadge

Distinguished
Mar 26, 2007
443
0
18,790


What do you mean? Well, I do know what you mean. But what does that have to do with this? You mean because the 6300 only has 2mb of cache? But still, we weren't really talking about e6600 vs. e6300.
 

royalcrown

Distinguished


I answered because no one directly answered his question, there was a lot of good replies, but not a concise answer.

Just trying to give a general lay of the land, without all the confusion.

 

Zorg

Splendid
May 31, 2004
6,732
0
25,790
However, we were talking about cache. I do like the "stronger than..." :lol:
I think my answer was as concise as one could be... no?
 

royalcrown

Distinguished


Like this above answer...great reply, but if he is just wondering, "Is it better to use and if I just put in a game, which one is better ?", it might help to just give a concise answer based on real usage and not theoretical maybe's. GAMES like the larger cache, it's a fact, why is that such a bad answer ? If he doesen't know the difference yet, you honestly think he's gonna be an overclocker and know what he's doing, or more of a put the stuff in and go guy ?
 

yadge

Distinguished
Mar 26, 2007
443
0
18,790


Well I just made a reply like that because I get kind of tired of people confusing the names of the processors, and calling a dual core processor a "duo core" or whatever. It gets kind of annoying. But then again there will always be new people, and I'm sure only a few will read this. So I guess it was kind of pointless. But whatever.

And actually, his original question was "like the topic says ... whats the difference between an intel dual core processor and the core2duo? they are both dual core but yet the core 2 costs more and such..."

So... techinically I anwered more clearly than just saying which is better.

But then he did ask which was better later... and I told him which I would get, because the e2200 is a lot cheaper.

But yes, the e6320 would be better for gaming, I suppose.

Whatever. If money isn't that important to you, get the e6320. It will be slightly better. If you are on a budget, I would suggest the e2200
 

Zorg

Splendid
May 31, 2004
6,732
0
25,790
Oh who cares, I have a Q6600. It's currently the el cheapo. I told him the difference between the two chips he specified. Maybe he should learn how to use Google, aye?
 

bgd73

Distinguished
Feb 18, 2008
201
0
18,690
being safe to assume no one wants to hear the rocket science behind it all....

multithreading simultaneous raped our minds into believing.

Now that I have just sounded off on the only two "people cpu makers"

I have a 2.8e, no announce for two cores, yet you can set affinity...on both cores. 200mhz declared fsb, yet does 800mhz things. Not to mention the twin ram paired up in every other slot like many did as a "trick" to speed things up and spread spectrum physically since i can first remember...a 233mhz of 12 years ago.. Today that is called dual channel memory. Ahh, the marketeers loved that one.

It is hard to stay enthused after 10 years of learning the hard way...They changed the numbers. It is as sad as calling a subaru sti a legend with a fake boxer engine.

I look out for micron level. L2-L3 cache can be too big, and transistor count in relation to thermal dissipation power numbers. Who cares what they called the cpu anymore, if you can understand the "other" stuff. two cores or more is key words...not necessarily BIG winner over another vaguely known.
Example:
125million transistors 89w-100 full load tdp value, the cpu is a two core.
quad four with 3 times as many transistors, and same tdp...uhmmm. It is doing more , exactly where?!

I stopped flipping out about evolution after the "e" run of the intel p4. They haven't done much since but babble perfectly into the marketplace. I frowned at a thread recently read about a kid who just spent 2024 dollars for an sli and a quad four at 2.4ghz scenario. He truly believes it will outperform anything out there...
Are there not any teachers? I thought I was the last dummy to spend that much for no reason ...
Bubba82 has good questions. I hope he gets more answers...


 
Status
Not open for further replies.