View Full Version : OT: Processor speeds and differences?

09-29-2007, 04:00 PM
Hey everyone, I am having a bit of trouble in figuring out the differences between processor speeds. I'm not all that brilliant when it comes to this sort of thing, and I know there are alot of people here who know this stuff like it's nothing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
My wife got me a new rig for my birthday in August, and it is a huge improvement over my old one. (God bless her lol.)

From my System Information window, it says it is an Intel Core2 CPU 6600 @ 2.4 Ghz. Now am I correct in assuming that this means I have in some sort of theory, two 2.4 Ghz processors, or are they sharing this 2.4?
I'm looking at a game that says I need a minimum CPU P4 3.0 Ghz, so is mine better than this requirement?

I appreciate any help with this, I've Googled and whatnot and I can't find anything that says yay or nay. Thanks in advance. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

09-29-2007, 04:35 PM
A little bump for ya...I think that there are alot of factor's beside's just the clock speed, for example, some processors have their multipliers completely unlocked, Cache type, size etc....may I ask what game, you are looking to get

09-29-2007, 05:38 PM
IF.. I remember correctly having a duo core is great if you have programs that can utilize multiple procs... but you cant just go 2.4+2.4 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif if it calls for 3.0 than I think you will need 3.0 (i might be wrong) is 3.0ghz the minimum requirement?


09-29-2007, 05:47 PM
this link may help somewhat:


09-29-2007, 05:48 PM
I dont understand the Intel method of calculating cpu speeds and cpu naming, however your processor seems to be more than adaquate as it's on a par with an AMD Athlon 64 dual core 6000+ so you don't have to worry about the clock speed Which don't seem to mean a great deal these days

benchmark tests (http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html)

09-29-2007, 06:08 PM
It is correct that you have the rough equivalent of two processors with the core two, and theoretically the operating system can make use of the extra core for running the background operations on it and such though if I understand correctly it's not quite perfected yet. There are also some programs out there that can use more than one proc. The processor speed can be somewhat confusing, though as your new proc is of a much more advanced architecture so that it can do much more work at a lower speed. It's kind of like comparing a tri-axle dumptruck to a pickup truck, sure the pickup is twice as fast, but if you need to carry twenty tons of dirt, it's still way faster to make one trip in the dumptruck than twenty in the pickup. (did that help?)

In summary, you have a nice dumptruck there, M8 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif and I hear it's one hell of an overclocker if your into that sort of thing!

09-29-2007, 07:16 PM
slipBall, the game I was looking at was Rainbow Six: Vegas. I'm a little behind on some games, but I find it easier to play an older game with more of the candy turned on this way lol.

Oddball, 3.0 is the minimum requirement, but it seems as though it might just work with mine after all.

WarHawk and Jolly, thankyou for the links they are both very useful. I don't know about my motherboard specifications according to that forum link, but the box for it is around here somewhere, I am going to see what they are.

BadA1m, thankyou for that information. Hopefully my dumptruck will last me a little while then, when programs start to use the advanced stuff. As for overclocking, I think I'll wait till I know a little more about it, and this thing starts to seem like its running slower.

Thanks again for all of your help. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

09-29-2007, 07:23 PM

I have the same CPU and it eats everything, 2 cores is the way to go. even on games that ask for a higher Ghz the extra performance from 2 cores will outperform it no probs. If you see 3Ghz just laugh at it.

Regards piper

09-29-2007, 07:31 PM
Also, much like why the AthlonXP series of CPUs was so powerful over Pentium 4 back a few years, it's also about how many instructions per clock cycle that a CPU can perform.

For example, back when AthlonXP was coming to power, although it would be called an XP2600+ by name for instance, it's actual base clock speed was 2.066GHz. Yet, it roughly performed like a 2.6GHz Pentium 4 due to the way the CPU performed multiple instructions per clock cycle.

A Core 2 Duo E6600 is an excellent CPU and with a little overclocking, will eat just about anything AMD has to offer these days.

09-29-2007, 09:16 PM
If the game requirement is for a 3.0GHz Pentium 4, then you have that beat by a good margin.

The Core Duo is not two P4's stuck together; it has a very different architecture. It's actually more like two older PIII cores with several updates and enhancements. In other words, it does more operations per "clock" (24,000,000 per second in this case) than the P4. It's one of the reasons why Intel no longer uses the clock speed as model numbers or in their marketing. AMD still uses a "PR" or "Pentium equivalent Rating" for their CPUs, though I think that it's still based on approximate P4 performance.

09-29-2007, 09:26 PM
3.0ghz...baah....you got it easy.

I have yet to find a game that doesn't play smooth on my AMD XP2200 1.8ghz. I have a decent video card, and keep my system clean, and I don't have a fraction of the problems some of these guys have who have very expensive systems.

The hype is toooo large. I will upgrade this winter, just because I want to, but I'll bet I could play BOB SOW on this rig just fine. Don't believe all the **** you hear. It's just there to sell more equipment.