1.8 Ghz Dual Core or 3.6?

So I was wondering whether my 1.8 Ghz dual core meant. Doesnt it mean that I have two 1.8 Ghz processors in my laptop? But would that make it equivalent to 3.6? I'm wondering because I'm thinking of buying CoD4 but want to know if I can run it well enough to play on my laptop. I have an 8400GS, not great but ok. 2 GB ram, 5400 rpm hard drive. It's a Dell 1420. Any help would be appreciated, thanks!

 

In general, a dual core 1.8GHz cpu means you have 2 cpus working at 1.8GHz each. They do not combine the speed.

But if you have a multithreaded program where both cpus can work together on the task, then you can say that you have 3.6GHz worth of power. But otherwise, you have 2 independent cores working at 1.8GHz

 

Yes, you have two 1.8ghz processors. Ignore the clock speeds, you're probably comparing it to the old Pentium's, which have 3ghz+. Each core of a dual core 1.66 was faster that my old Pentium m 2.0ghz and that was faster than a old Pentium 3ghz desktop I believe. Clock speed is not everything! Of course a 2.0ghz duo core is faster that a 1.8ghz duo core though but for gaming like CoD4 the processor makes hardly any difference, its all about the graphics card.

A 8400gs isn't great (it's what i have! ) and will really struggle with CoD4. I'm playing CoD2 at the moment on my 8400gs and it can't reach decent frame rates atall on the lowest settings in dx9 mode. In dx7 mode I can get good settings though (1440x900, 2aa, high at 20-40fps). CoD4 should run but at very low res and low settings. Maybe 800x600, low (?)

Dave

 

i just wanted to know how would a 2ghz core2duo processor compare to a pentium 4 one

 

Clock for clock the Core2Duo is faster and you get 2 cores, so, multitasking greatly benefits.

The Pentium 4 was a brute force grab for clock speed which was largely a failure. They were largely a marketing sham. I was never impressed by the Pentium 4.

 

c2d>AMD>pentium4

 

so what ghz in a pentium 4 be equal to as core2duo 2ghz

 

each core of a core 2 is about twice as fast than a core of pentium 4

 

My C2D T7200 @2ghz is rated on system test lab @ 5GHZ pentium 4 If that helps (well 4.94ghz not 5ghz)

 

I benchmarked a 2.33GHz Core 2 Duo against a 4.1GHz overclocked P4 before and the C2D won out hands down.

You can see a performance comparison between the C2D and the PM here:
http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=3134&article=Core+2+Duo+Performance

 

thanks all

 

P4 not equal C2D

P4 one CPU
&
C2D two CPUs

there are different technology

I thing

 

But what is the different bettwen

core 2 due 2.0GHz
&
dual core 2.0GHz

 

can anyone second that

 

try CPU chart

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html

edit:
Even a pentium dual core (not even a core 2 duo) @1.8Ghz beats p4 [email protected] by a huge margin..

 

I like using the analogy of cars to compare a C2D and a P4. The 190hp Lotus Elise is much faster than the 306hp Ford Mustang. It comes down to efficiency and architecture whereby the clock speed is no longer the benchmark to compare speed when it comes to multi-cored processors.

 

MHz or GHz are a TIMING and not a speed.

Literally they are a measurement for "cycles per second".

Understand that a C2D does a LOT more in a cycle than a P4 due to technology advancements.

Larger numbers which indicate faster timings are not always better.

Simple comparison:
Imagine you and your friend are carrying cement bags up a hill to build on the top of the hill.
There are 36 bags so you and your friend divide it up at 18 apiece.
You are bulkier but move half as fast.(he has 2 cycles per second to your 1)
You carry 3 times what he can.
You make 6 trips up the hill at half his speed.
In that time he makes 12 trips up bringing one bag each time.
He still has 6 more trips left after you are done bringing all 18 of your bags to the top... (6 more of his cycles, and 3 more of yours)

The bulky but slower guy is one core of the C2D.
The fast but weaker one is the P4.

 

The lay way it's been explained to me is this:

The Pentium was from an era when "speed" was king and for advertising purposes, it was normal to boast about your clock speed. Slowly, but surely, Apple using the G4 and G5 and AMD using the Athlon 64 and 64 X2 debunked this myth. Even Intel got in on the debunking with their Pentium M chip.

The reason the Pentium 4 sucks is because to get the clock speed up Intel made nice long straightaways, but not that many exits <- lay explanation to be sure. So, sure, you're traveling at 3GHz or whatever, but there are not that many opportunities to get off and do work.

This matches what I always felt about the P4, that it made a lot of noise and drank a lot of juice, but was never impressive as a fast or responsive chip. It had strengths, it was good at media encoding, but day to day use, even fast P4 chips felt kinda sluggish to me. The first P4 chips, like in the 1.7GHz were just awful.

 

The first crack at was the Pentium D. This was a quick cheap stopgap hack, basically dumping 2 Pentium 4 chips together. Not dual core, but rather dual CPU. The AMD Athlon 64 X2 was the smart play here.

Next was the Core Duo. This was the first real dual core. The Core 2 Duo came out shortly after the Core Duo and is considered to be roughly 10-15% faster at the same clock. These chips were the start of a mini-ice age for AMD from which no real escape is yet possible.

Not sure what the exact enhancements are between Core Duo and Core 2 Duo, but I'm sure there are lots of articles on google that discuss these two chips.

 

Yeah, the Pentium D at 4.4ghz is equivalent to a 2ghz Core2 Duo. I have performance for that.

 

Yeah. I get exactly 4.94ghz as well on srtest.

 

The thing is though, you can't really put down the Pentium D or Core2 Duo. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. My Pentium D at 4.4ghz is faster in some test than a Core2 e6600.

I know this picture is big, but this thread need evidence.


My reasoning for all of this is: Yes, the Pentium D can run at Core2 performance speed, but heat is the problem. If I had my Pentium D under water, I would be able to squeeze it to 4.7-8ghz and probably match a e6700 before reaching 69*C (my wall before Intel TM1).

 

Holy Macaroni

 

In short... C2D can handle more processes at once & better than Pentium 4..

How about AMD Turion 64 X2??? Its core clock is lower but it handles processes better I heard due to optimization technology.

 

If a Pentium D and Core2 are at the same clock speed, yes, a Core2 Duo is more efficient than a Pentium D.

The biggest thing why the Pentium 4/D was dropped was the high TDP and heat. It can do the same performance, but at a cost of bunches of heat.