🚀 go-pugleaf

The core2 does around 30-50% more work per clock cycle than the old
"netburst" core used in the Pentium4.  AMD is around 10% less work per
clock cycle that core2, but cost less, too.  Browse around
http://www.tomshardware.com for a recent performance test of different
CPUs all runnung at 2.4 GHZ.
BTW, the netburst cores also used 30% more power than the core2 and
Athlon X2 CPUs (65 watt vs. 90 watt)

--Mort

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 20:00:12 +0100, "-=Matt=-"
<robert.franks@SPAMMUSTDIEbtbroadband.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>Not knowing much about CPUs these days (bring back the 386, 486 etc!), I'm a
>bit confused as to the various merits of the new COre 2 Duo. To put it
>simply, I'm hoping to be able to play games like Bioshock or Crysis on a new
>rig. I know the system I'm looking at is fairly basic, but Im not a graphics
>freak and don't mind about turning off graphics options to medium/low. Im
>used to only affording what I need so no need to mention
>
>Core 2 Duo 6300
>1GB ram
>GeForce 7600
>Windows XP.
>
>I'm not bothered about DX10 as it's out of my price range.
>
>I can get all this for around £350 on ebay. Then I saw a pc with a duel core
>Intel Pentium D running at 6.8Ghz (2x3.4 I think) for only £160. Now, to me,
>the 6.8Ghz figure sounds amazing, when compared to the 3Ghz ish of the Core
>2.
>
>Any views on which would be better, given the price? I was prepared to pay
>the extra for the core 2, but is it worth it?
>
>\cheers
>Matt
>
>


-- Mort