You know how there's like dual core and quad core processors? Well say you have a dual core processor that's 3gh, and a quad core that's 2.4gh. Is the quad core actually faster? Like is the speed per core? So the dual core would be 6gh and the quad core would be 9.6gh?
it all depends what you are doing and if the program/game is optimized for dual or quad for example vidoe rendering will allways be faster on the quad coz it can split the task better A dual core will play most games better at he mo coz they are optimized for it. If you want flexibility go with quad if its more for games get dual core. Hope that helps
Okay look I have heard this and it is true if quad core is higher than 3.0 it is extremely fast but in your case no dual core is faster.
OK, thanks. I was wondering because the dual core 3.0gh is a lot cheaper than pretty much any quad core, and I haven't seen any that are more than like 2.8gh.
clock speed is not added. clock speed is not added. clock speed is not added. clock speed is not added. clock speed is not added. clock speed is not added. clock speed is not added. clock speed is not added. clock speed is not added. clock speed is not added. clock speed is not added. clock speed is not added. time does not go buy twice as fast when you have two wrist watches on. having additional cores does not increase the rate at which transistors refresh. GHz= billion hertz hertz = cycle per second. so if I have a processor which has a clock speed of 4 GHz and it has 1000 cores... it's clock speed is 4GHz. PERIOD. as for which is faster... if you do media encoding, a 2.4Ghz Core 2 quad q6600 is pretty good, as is a q9300 if you don't do a lot of encoding or rendering... well the other two cores just waste electricity and cost more while accomplishing nothing. as for AMD comparisons, you need a 2.7Ghz Phenom to be on par with a q6600. You need a 4Ghz Athlon 64 x2 to be on par with a 3Ghz e8400
