Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

dual core vs core 2 duo

Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 16, 2008 12:45:22 AM

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...

More about : dual core core duo

May 16, 2008 12:52:14 AM

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).
May 16, 2008 1:06:19 AM

holy **** theres a difference?!
Related resources
May 16, 2008 1:17:04 AM

so essentially there is no difference between the 2 beside the name? like for ex. are c2d more powerful than dc?
May 16, 2008 1:40:23 AM

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.
May 16, 2008 1:52:52 AM

There's also a Pentium D which is dual-core before the Core Duo.
May 16, 2008 1:59:57 AM

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)
May 16, 2008 4:04:54 AM

themyrmidon said:
There's also a Pentium D which is dual-core before the Core Duo.


Heh, I didn't mean to say that Core was the first dual core labeling, just that it came before Core 2.
May 16, 2008 4:57:39 AM

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
May 16, 2008 5:17:02 AM

seboj said:
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.


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.
May 16, 2008 5:27:53 AM

Core 2 Duo (C2D) is just the name for intel's most recent dual-core CPU based on the Core 2 architecture
May 16, 2008 5:29:26 AM

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.

May 16, 2008 5:43:34 AM

Bubba82 said:
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
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.
May 16, 2008 5:43:49 AM

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.
May 16, 2008 6:06:40 AM

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".
May 16, 2008 6:10:05 AM

royalcrown said:
Also the 6600 are "stronger than 6300's".


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.
May 16, 2008 6:31:42 AM

yadge said:
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.


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.

May 16, 2008 6:33:54 AM

However, we were talking about cache. I do like the "stronger than..." :lol: 
royalcrown said:
...there was a lot of good replies, but not a concise answer.
I think my answer was as concise as one could be... no?
May 16, 2008 6:36:56 AM

yadge said:
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.


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 ?
May 16, 2008 6:41:45 AM

And honestly Zorg, you have great posts, I was just doing the "kiddie pool version" so he could get an idea, as he get's to be a hax0r, that's where you'd come in :p ...lol

May 16, 2008 6:43:55 AM

royalcrown said:
.... as he get's to be a hax0r, that's where you'd come in :p ...lol
Way too funny. :lol:  :lol: 
May 16, 2008 6:48:41 AM

Anyway, to sum things up:

Core 2 > Core

Games love cache.

Higher FSB is better.

H4x0r5 0F 73h \/\/0R|_D ... unite?
May 16, 2008 7:05:02 AM

royalcrown said:
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 ?


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
May 16, 2008 7:14:48 AM

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?
May 16, 2008 7:50:57 AM

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...


May 16, 2008 8:14:41 AM

it's all good, and yeah, it doesent matter what is best if you can't afford it...hehe...why I got AMD instead of e8500 goodness ! I sincerely hope deneb doesen't suck A%% like these barceloney cores. I mean a 6400, rippin their quads a new one, comon !

May 16, 2008 8:32:51 AM

if the OP is on a budget, the e2200 + OCing would be a monster for value (and imho anyone on a budget needs to learn to OC)
May 16, 2008 8:37:23 AM

You mean like saving 40 bucks on a cpu, but spending 50 on an uber cooler and 700 case fans ? Plus some people actually like to keep their stuff running stable for more than a year.

I never have probs with my systems, even old ones running in a closed cabinet, why...I don't oc.
May 16, 2008 8:41:51 AM

bgd73, a tad disjointed. He got his answers more than once. I still say a little effort with the help of Google will serve him best.
May 16, 2008 8:42:25 AM

Everyone left out NetBurst, which the brainaics at the Intel design facility in Israel killed off with the intro of the core 2 dual.
a b à CPUs
May 16, 2008 10:01:27 AM

bobbknight said:
Everyone left out NetBurst, which the brainaics at the Intel design facility in Israel killed off with the intro of the core 2 dual.


Don't some of the QX still support NetBurst?

And they're reintroducing it under Nehalam with a different name.

Anyone remember the name?
May 16, 2008 1:43:29 PM

in response to zorg..... before i registered on this forum i was googling for answers....i get tired of getting links to discussions that dont even answer my questions... so i decided to come here for i heard of how helpful the community was from a friend..i guess i have to endure posts like "Maybe he should learn how to use Google, aye? " in order to get to the helpful ones.... i appreciate eveything that everyone has said... i am a newbie when it comes to this stuff... no i would rather not overclock for i hear it is dangerous to yer stuff. and like royal said i would like to have my pc to last a long while for i am not made of money to be able to get an el cheapo of q6600?!?!
May 16, 2008 6:23:15 PM

Bubba82 said:
in response to zorg..... before i registered on this forum i was googling for answers....i get tired of getting links to discussions that dont even answer my questions... so i decided to come here for i heard of how helpful the community was from a friend..i guess i have to endure posts like "Maybe he should learn how to use Google, aye? " in order to get to the helpful ones.... i appreciate eveything that everyone has said... i am a newbie when it comes to this stuff... no i would rather not overclock for i hear it is dangerous to yer stuff. and like royal said i would like to have my pc to last a long while for i am not made of money to be able to get an el cheapo of q6600?!?!
Oh, terribly sorry for my insolence. :cry:  I hope I didn't offend your sensibilities.

Let me help you with the Google thing.

Intel Core 2 - Wikipedia
Conroe, Allendale & Conroe-L all in one
Intel Core 2 Duo Performance: L2 cache

These should give you all of the information you need.

Overclocking is not dangerous to your hardware unless you don't follow the rules or try for the world record. Remember, everything in moderation.

HOWTO: Overclock C2Q (Quads) and C2D (Duals) - Guide v1.6.1
Core 2 Quad and Duo Temperature Guide

My post regarding my Q6600 was in response to Yadge, relating to his response to royal crown. You left out the sentence where I said "I told him the difference between the two chips he specified." I never said that I expected you to get a Q6600. It was more of a you guys are beating a dead horse post.
May 17, 2008 7:35:06 PM

its ok zorg i forgive you...... ty for spending your time to help me out... i am grateful for your insight
May 17, 2008 8:22:57 PM

a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square!!!!!!!!!
May 17, 2008 9:12:43 PM

royalcrown said:
You mean like saving 40 bucks on a cpu, but spending 50 on an uber cooler and 700 case fans ? Plus some people actually like to keep their stuff running stable for more than a year.
...

Fortunately, many Intel CPUs don't require an aftermarket CPU cooler or large numbers of case fans for reasonable (running stable for a number of years) OCing.

a b à CPUs
May 17, 2008 9:12:51 PM

^Price less.
May 17, 2008 9:13:34 PM

Haha, your typing was too slow, shadow!
May 17, 2008 11:58:35 PM

bobbknight said:
Everyone left out NetBurst, which the brainaics at the Intel design facility in Israel killed off with the intro of the core 2 dual.


mi1ez said:
Don't some of the QX still support NetBurst?

And they're reintroducing it under Nehalam with a different name.

Anyone remember the name?


I think you guys mean hyper-threading.
a b à CPUs
July 22, 2009 6:42:50 AM

Bubba82 said:
like the topic says ... whats the difference between an intel dual core processor and the core2duo?
All these replies and nobody's mentioned the fact that the "Core 2" family of products is capable of running 64-bit operating systems and therefore accepting a lot more memory. The previous "Core" family is not.

I've always wondered what braniac at Intel came up with the "Core 2" moniker. Talk about confusing your customers
July 22, 2009 7:01:48 AM

sminlal said:
All these replies and nobody's mentioned the fact that the "Core 2" family of products is capable of running 64-bit operating systems and therefore accepting a lot more memory. The previous "Core" family is not.

I've always wondered what braniac at Intel came up with the "Core 2" moniker. Talk about confusing your customers


I have the e5300 (pentuim dual-core) and it is 64 bit architecture, unless your talking about pentium D.
a b à CPUs
July 22, 2009 4:30:04 PM

Contemno said:
I have the e5300 (pentuim dual-core) and it is 64 bit architecture, unless your talking about pentium D.
Understood - but in the mysterious meandering maze of Intel's processor families and product naming conventions, an "Intel Pentium Dual Core" processor is not an "Intel Core" processor... :heink: 
August 8, 2009 7:24:07 AM

Thanks all. I googled here too and believe it or not, you answered the question I had. Ill probably choose the core duo for my rebuild. (im not an overclocker) and my applications are more for multimedia graphic design and music recording.

I suppose for a lot of us researching, it seems a bit idiotic to use "core" in both instances, when a name change would save a lot of confusion.

My pentium 4 has been a good unit and still in use as a periphal computer. I got it to its maximum capacity over the years by researching, trial and error and fiddling...lol. It may be however I rebuild, the same will true. Technology is just going to way too fast. Kidding
Anyway...thanks for the questions and answers.
Cheers
musicman

August 8, 2009 7:34:17 AM

Well all i know is that core 2 dou has 2 cpus propably , and the dual core also has 2 cpus but the diffrince is that the dual core splits one proccess into 2 procceses while the core 2 dou proccess is handled with 2 cpus ... or at least thats what i read :s
a b à CPUs
August 10, 2009 8:20:54 AM

jefo15 said:
Well all i know is that core 2 dou has 2 cpus propably , and the dual core also has 2 cpus but the diffrince is that the dual core splits one proccess into 2 procceses while the core 2 dou proccess is handled with 2 cpus ... or at least thats what i read :s
Eh? In terms of how processes are executed a "dual core" and a "core 2 duo" are the same. The only way a process can be "split into 2 processes" is if the programmer coded it to be a multithreaded application in the first place. A single-threaded application is a single-threaded application no matter how many CPU cores the system it's running on has.
November 12, 2009 5:04:26 PM

there is a diffrence between cache memory dual core has 4 mb of cache while cro2 duo has 8 mb of cache
and the another new one core2 Quad has 12 mb of cache with 1333mhz of bus speed..
a b à CPUs
November 13, 2009 8:23:38 AM

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey
!