Core 4 Duo 2 Duo 3 with 3 cores. 33GHZ AND I7 2. WHICH IS BETTER 8GHZ

The Core 2 Duo is a bit faster.

In Intel's words, the i7 is about 15% faster than the Core 2 Extreme 4-core of the same frequency.

This conversion to the i7 is roughly equivalent to the Core 2 Extreme 4-core CPU, so it will be inferior.

If the architecture was really that good, Intel wouldn't be so stupid as to chase the main frequency for decades before it thought of delving into the architecture.

This is just because the high frequency heat generation of the CPU cannot be solved, and to improve the performance, you can only start with the architecture, and the performance of the simple architecture is still very limited, so multi-core is added.

However, i7 supports 8 threads, which still has certain advantages in multitasking, although this so-called advantage is completely a decoration for ordinary users, but Intel does not want to position i7 in the ordinary user layer.

The architecture is not omnipotent, and if the main frequency is high enough, it will definitely be able to reverse the situation.

The graphene transistor technology under development can make another huge leap in the CPU main frequency, and we look forward to that day.

If there is a P4 100G, it can be abused, and the Core i7 975 can't find the north.

i7 is a complete native architecture, completely abandoning the cumbersome mode of second-level cache data exchange, X58 series motherboards with QDI bus execution efficiency is extremely high, not the core 2 can catch up with a little bit of the main frequency, in addition to the use of 3-channel memory technology, completely surpassing the core 2.

The advantage of the Core 2 quad-core is that the motherboard is still relatively cheap, and generally the better P45 is within a thousand. The cheap ones are only four or five hundred, and the x58 is expensive.

At present, the highest frequency of the core 2 quad-core extreme processor QX9770 or QX9750 frequency is,It seems that there is no default,The general test results on the Internet are realistic QX9650The performance is completely inferior to i7 920,The i7 you said is estimated to be i7 860,The performance is stronger than 920,** It is cheaper than QX9650 by four or five hundred, and it is thousands cheaper than QX9770, and the performance is estimated to be comparable.

i7 wins, isn't it a notch thing?

In addition to the main frequency and cache, even the Core 2 dual-core is not as good as the i7

i7 Okay: Some of them don't have the final say on the surface.

I'm using the i7 and I don't feel how good it is. However, when playing large online games (running and csol), the dual-core CPU uses 50%, and the i7 CPU uses only between 13-25%.

1Floor bright,Landlord,The current CPU is not measured by the main frequency to measure the performance gap,Think about the Pentium of Intel back then4 is a typical high-frequency and low-energy。

The i7 920 was right to pick him.

No matter how super the buckle meat is, it is also a piece of meat, and the beloved wife can easily get on 4g

First of all, the current games or most applications do not support multiple cores very well, and in the case of the same power consumption, the higher the single-core frequency, the better (depending on personal use), large games require high frequency, and the number of cores is not large, while software such as commodity management does not need a high frequency, but needs to be opened more, so the number of cores is required to be higher.

If you're playing games, use 4 cores.

If you are used to manage ** or open more management software, then use six cores.

1. When the number of CPU cores and the CPU frequency are different, the more CPU cores, the higher the frequency, the better.

2. Judging from all the software and games now, the advantage of high-frequency quad-core is a little greater, because there are currently more software and games optimized for quad-core.

3. For multi-core performance, six-core is better than four-core.

Depending on personal needs, I would choose quad cores.

1. Comparing the Intercore dual-core i7 processor with the Intercore quad-core i7 processor, there is no doubt that the Intercore quad-core i7 processor is faster.

Second, in fact, when comparing CPU performance, first look at the number of cores, hyper-threading, and then look at the frequency, bus structure, cache, etc. More than ten years ago, the Pentium D single-core has been reached, but now the quad-core i7 is only, so it is natural to know who is faster.

3. Classification comparison of current popular processors:

Now Intel's i7 quad-core models are very few, and it is definitely better to have 4 cores.

If it is Internet access or general single-task operation, the computer is single-core work by default. If you want to do multi-tasking operations such as programming, graphic design, animation, image processing, web design, etc., you need to have multiple cores. So if it's not for production and design work, the dual-core is fast, even if you have a few more cores, you won't need it, and it won't work.

It is recommended that general users choose the above single-core processors.

Dual-core is fast in single-tasking or gaming, and quad-core is fast in multitasking at the same time.

Which is better quad or hexacore?

Hello, <>

In general, a quad-core processor is likely to have better single-core performance, while a six-core processor is likely to have better multi-core performance. Quad-core processors perform better in single-threaded operations because they have a higher frequency per core, while six-core processors have more cores to handle multiple missing tasks at the same time. So, if you primarily need to work with a single thread or a workload that requires alpine frequency operations, then a quad-core processor may be more suitable.

If you need to work on multiple tasks at the same time, or work on workloads that require more cores, then a six-tease scrambler processor may be a better fit. However, it is important to note that this is only a general recommendation. Each specific processor model also has different architecture, cache, memory controller, and other factors, which can also affect actual performance.

Therefore, when selecting a processor, it is also necessary to refer to specific technical specifications and test results.

First, the pulse signal is different.

1. GHz: It will generate 2.4 billion clock pulse signals per second, and each clock signal period is nanoseconds.

2. It generates 2.6 billion clock pulse signals per second, and each clock signal period is nanoseconds.

Second, the main frequency is different.

1. GHz: The main frequency is, and the running speed is lower.

2. The main frequency is, and the running speed is higher.

Third, the power consumption is different.

1. GHz: The frequency is low, and the power consumption should be lower.

2. The frequency is high, and the power consumption is higher.

Theoretically, the main frequency is the same as the number of cores, the CPU is a little stronger than the CPU, but you can't directly talk about the main frequency, at the beginning, the eight-core and eight-threaded FX8150 was still the four-core and eight-thread only about the main frequency of the i7 exploded, and now the FX9590 still can't beat the third generation of i7, even if there is a 5GHz frequency, so, if you exclude the influence of the architecture, it must be a little stronger.

This is the main frequency of the CPU, and the higher the frequency, the more cores, the stronger the CPU.

The difference is not big, the improvement in performance is the difference in frequency, about 6-10%.

1. Similar CPUs:

The architecture and process are the same, the frequency of the CPU with different models will be different, the CPU with high frequency is more expensive, the performance will be better, and the performance is basically increased linearly according to the frequency, so how much the frequency increases, how much the performance will basically improve.

2 CPU is not the same series or not the same product, such as the comparison of the CPU of Intel and AMD:

The frequency of the high, there is no direct comparability, process improvement, architecture improvement, algorithm improvement, according to the difference between CPU performance, many of the previous old CPUs, high frequency, power consumption is also large, the performance is not as good as the new architecture CPU much lower than its frequency, such as the Internet generation dual-core PD935 and the like, the frequency, its performance and the performance of the E2160 frequency of the later improved architecture is almost the same.

Of course, it is quad-core, if it works at the same time, the dual-core can be processed and the quad-core can be processed at the same time, which do you say?

Of course, some games are optimized for dual-core, in which case dual-core is more efficient.

When it comes to specific models, the performance of processors is not the same generation.

Both of them are garbage CPUs,Both games and PS,At least change more than one U bar,Even if it's the 8th generation of i3, it's okay to have 8 generations of 1,000 yuan and less than 1,000 yuan performance.

Image point said. Dual-core is two people doing things. The quadruple core is four people doing things.

Frequency indicates how fast or slow things are done. If there are only 1-2 things. It's dual-core fast.

If a lot of things... Of course, it's quad-core to hurry up. So depending on how you use the computer, if you only use to run 1-2 programs, it's better to have a dual core.

Otherwise quad-core is good.

Don't just talk about the frequency, please say the specific model of the processor! AMD's old quad-core high-frequency processor is not yet killed by Intel's dual-core i3...

It's useless to just look at the CPU frequency. Also look at the CPU model.

Quad-core is better.

Quad-core: Runs faster and consumes less power. Poor stability. Dual-core: vice versa.

Instead, look at stability, for example, many machines that need stability currently use Intel Ben Si processors.

A dual core processor is the integration of two computing cores on a single processor to increase computing power, which simply means that two physical processor cores are integrated into one core.

A quad-core processor is a processor based on a single semiconductor that has four processor cores with the same function, which simply means that four physical processor cores are integrated into one core.

Depending on your app, it's good for you to watch a movie that is dual-core. You suppress a movie is good for quad-core.

The game is not the latest high-end game, it is definitely a good dual-core.

Clearly yes", but when it comes to multi-threaded tasks, the quad-core has an advantage over the dual-core one, but when it comes to single-threaded tasks, yes, the dual-core is faster.

That's why some gamers buy a quad-core computer but aren't as fast as a dual-core computer: they don't play a lot of games at once

But it's not much worse than the real thing.,Quad-core is just like a diploma.,Although it's still rare to have quad-core software.,But there will be one in the future.,You have to decide which one you want.。

Also, if it is not for carrying, it is not recommended to buy this book.

It's not absolute, but I'm definitely quad-core fast. Because the dual-core i7 is only available in notebooks. No matter which platform the quad-core i7 is, it's all violent.

4 cores fast. There are 2 more cores and less cores, and the comprehensive performance is completely victorious.