Which is better, AMD triple core CPU with 2 1GB or dual core CPU with 2 6GB? Hurry!!

Buying a CPU is not just looking at the live frequency, you have to pay attention to his front-end bus output and L2 cache, etc., for example, the main frequency of the Pentium dual-core is higher than that of the Cool dual-core, but the performance is not as strong as his, and the main frequency of the desktop computer is on the left and right.

In the current situation, it is still installed with 3 cores, after all, judging from the question you asked, the range of use of your computer can't be seen from the same. 3 cores will still have an advantage in multitasking in the future, and dual cores will be eliminated.

There is nothing to compare between different lines, the key is what you do with the computer, but 3>2 is always the truth.

The software support of the three cores is not good, and the technology is not mature. And sandwiched between dual-core and quad-core, it is a transitional product, and it is not recommended.

The dual-core is cost-effective, with stable performance and good software support. At present, the performance of games and other games exceeds 3 cores, and it is recommended to buy.

The CPU is not in place in one step. When the quad-core technology matures and unifies the world, what is the use of 3x. And the current mainstream 4x has long been eliminated. When the time comes, it is better to buy mature products.

The basic principles of computer allocation: cost-effective, applicability, in line with bucket rules. Spending more than you need and overall performance is wasteful. It's easy to grasp this principle.

It depends on what you're doing with it.,If it's an ordinary user.,Dual-core is enough.,Three-core is good.,But we don't need to spend more money.,What you can pull with a car.,Isn't it a waste if you use a big car to pull it.。

Generally speaking, whichever is more expensive.

In the case of multitasking, there is an advantage to triple core, but if it is just a game, the difference is not very obvious, because the current game is not very good at optimizing multi-core.

It must be good for three cores, I looked at the detailed parameters, and I'm also going to buy a three-core cup and replace my dual-core one

I'll pick three boxes, although the technology is not mature enough, but the emergence of the triple core is the real multi-core era.

Multi-core is only for multitasking, the CPU occupancy is relatively low, but now there are still very few software optimized for multi-tasking, and the advantages of multi-core are not shown, but now the three-core is not expensive, you can buy one.

The performance of the CPU is not a condition of the main frequency.

The core architecture The number of cores has the greatest impact on the performance of the graphics card, and the main frequency cache is also more important, but not the most important, Intel's CPU, the core architecture is more advanced, so, the power consumption is much lower than AMD's.

Intel's dual-core CPUs are comparable in performance to AMD's triple-core CPUs and even quad-core CPUs

Intel dual-core vs. AMD triple-core, some quad-core.

Intel i5 Quad Core vs AMD Quad Core Six-core, Octa-Core, Intel i7 Quad Core The full range has few rivals over the years.

Playing games, of course, IntelCPU, AMD multi-core, for multi-tasking or multi-core running scores, it's still very powerful.

FX8170, most people are also in the cloud, multi-open and multi-threaded. FX8170 is definitely inferior to i5, losing in single-threaded optimization, that is, the game performance is not as good as i5. But unzip. Multitasking. Definitely higher than i5

I feel like the main reason is on the CPU.,Is the turbo frequency not turned on?,And the main frequency is really not high.,It's normal to play big games slowly.。

Core dual-core? What you're saying is.

Intel 775 Architecture Pentium Dual-Core E6700 CPU? If that's the case, the AMD U in the same price range should be the X3 445.

**AMD wins, the number of cores and multi-threaded AMD wins, the game performance has its own merits, the process is the same, the single-core performance intel wins, don't think about overclocking, the frequency is already very high = =b, the comprehensive ability of the platform AMD wins.

Intel wins the performance of the processor alone, but the actual use of the two is almost the same, because the x3 445 has 3 cores, 2 cores to run games, 1 core to run the system is easier than a 2-core processor, if you open the ut qq web game at the same time then more cores in this multitasking situation works a little better. If you run a solo game, or just look at the web page, this is obviously Intel's E6700 works better and is faster.

There is only one reason why E6700 is not recommended here, that is, there is a better i3 530 540, **730 or so, also dual-core, but the architecture is more advanced, and the manufacturing process has also been improved to 32 nanometers, and the H55 board is also relatively cheap, and it also supports multi-threading, that is to say, it is 2 cores and 4 threads, and it performs better in multi-tasking, which just makes up for the multi-threading defects of E6700.

I guess you're talking about the E5800 with a lot of CPUs with the main frequency If it's the E5800, it's a low-end one, probably about the same as AMD X2 255.

AMD hasn't been able to match the Core yet.

Dual-core <>

Three-core swimmer. <>

The more common dual-cores are the x2 7750 and x2 7850;

The more common tri-core is x; Band imitation.

For a list of specific processors, let's look at the picture above. Stupid grinding.

If you don't understand something, please ask, it helps, thank you.