Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Core 2 duo

Last response: in CPUs
August 1, 2011 9:49:43 PM

I have been told that there are core 2 duo cpu's that are better than an i3,i5 or i7 is that true? because im still using ddr2 and i dont want to spend money on buying a ddr3 because i would need to change the ram and video cards? what should i do? BTW im a pc gamer.

More about : core duo

a b à CPUs
August 1, 2011 11:49:43 PM

Not true, but the core 2's are still a pretty good chip. The current gen chips are about 40 to 50 percent faster clock to clock over the first core 2's.
a c 448 à CPUs
August 2, 2011 12:03:02 AM

Core 2 Duo are older than the current Core i CPUs. However, they are still pretty powerful. Core i CPUs have about 20% - 25% better performance than the older Core 2 Duo CPUs clock for clock.

While it would be nice if Core i CPUs were 40% - 50% better than Core 2 Duo, that is a bit over exaggerated.
Related resources
a b à CPUs
August 2, 2011 12:20:27 AM

LOL. There is about a 15 to 20 percent improvement going from Nehalem clock for clock to sandy bridge, No exaggeration. Look it up Jag, going from the first core 2 to 45 nm core 2's netted around 10 percent. Then a further 10 to 15 percent on the jump to Nehalem.

If you clock a q6600 to 3.0 and an i7 2500 to 3.0ghz, it's going to be any where from 40 to 50 percent faster.

a c 448 à CPUs
August 2, 2011 12:32:38 AM

Based on prior research going from C2D to Clarkdale yielded an average of about 10% - 15% performance increase. From Clarkdale to Sandy Bridge is about another 10% improvement.
a c 134 à CPUs
August 2, 2011 12:34:37 AM

A q6600 score about 170 in Sysmark. (2.4Ghz quad core)
A E8500 scores about 200. (3.16Ghz dual core)
A stock I3-2100 scores about 217. (3.1Ghz dual core w/o H/T)
A stock I5-2500k gets about 260. (3.3Ghz quad core w/o HT)
A stock i7-2600k gets around 275. (3.4Ghz quad core w/HT)
and just for giggles an AMD X6 1100t scores 204 (6 core no HT (thats an intel thing))

So if you just look at the e8500 to I3-2100 the there is not alot of gain to be had, less than 10%, when you just compare the processors.

Not that there aren't palces where these new processesors really shine but we weren't given a specific comparison so a general benchamrk is only fair I think.
a c 123 à CPUs
August 2, 2011 12:40:52 AM

You know Tom's just had a article about this. Conclusions averaged about 25% from Conroe to SB.

But how the newer architecture handles multiple threads will also affect performance once it is taken out of this "artificial" test.
a b à CPUs
August 2, 2011 12:40:58 AM

You would need to use a single threaded benchmark for a real comparison. Clock them the same and see how it goes.
a b à CPUs
August 2, 2011 12:44:59 AM

You do know that according to that chart a core 2 6850 is about 50 percent slower than a 2600k in the single threaded test. Remember 50 percent doesn't mean twice as good.
August 2, 2011 2:13:53 AM

My current motherboard right now is a Gigabite model EP43-UD3l and can only take Core 2 Quad / Core 2 Extreme / Core 2 Duo cpu's.
Is it posible that a core 2 duo like the e8500 can beat a Quad Core cpu needed to run game such as the witcher 2 and skyrim?
a c 79 à CPUs
August 2, 2011 3:14:38 AM

no, but its likely the game will be perfectly playable with that cpu.
August 2, 2011 3:17:12 AM

well at least i have an idea on what i need thanks for the answers community.