 Core 2 Duo Comparison - Ghz Versus Fsb ?!? |
Welcome Guest ( Log In | Click here to Register a free account now! )
Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to Bleeping Computer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.| Important Announcement: We have two terrific contests running on the site that I wanted all our members and guests to know about. The first contest is the HP Magic Giveaway, which is underway as of November 28th. More information can be found at this topic, which will be updated very soon with further information. The second contests, is for the chance to win two Seagate FreeAgent external hard drives. More information about this contest can be found here. These are both amazing contests and I suggest everyone submit an entry for them. - BleepingComputer Management |
  |
 Apr 6 2008, 05:54 PM
Post
#1
|
|
|
New Member  Group: Members Posts: 2 Joined: 3-January 08 Member No.: 180,794  |
1. 2.20 GHz, 2MB Cache, 800 MHz FSB 2. 1.86 GHz, 2MB Cache, 1066 MHz FSB |
 |
 
|
|
Apr 6 2008, 07:27 PM
Post
#2
|
|
 Forum Addict Group: BC Advisor Posts: 1,196 Joined: 28-September 06 From: New York Member No.: 87,553 |
I think the one running at 2.20ghz might be a bit faster. It would also have better overclocking potential. It would have a multiplier of 11, versus the multiplier of the other being 7. I don't know if you are going to do any overclocking, but the higher multiplier makes it easier.
On the other hand, a higher fsb is better then a higher multiplier. If you have identical processors, but they have different bus speed, if one has a higher fsb it would run a little faster. I don't think you would really notice a performance different between them. If you are going to overclock though, I would recommend the 800 fsb processor. Hopefully I didn't confuse you too much. I think overall, the 2.20ghz one would be a little bit better, but you probably wouldn't really be able to notice the difference. --------------------  |
|
|
|
|
Apr 7 2008, 08:01 AM
Post
#3
|
|
 Distinguished Member Group: BC Advisor Posts: 601 Joined: 28-January 06 From: Australia Member No.: 52,817 |
The balance of performance between the two will vary depending on the type of processing being done. The 2.2 GHz CPU will have understandably higher performance in straightout processing, mathematical algorithms etc. A CPU with the higher FSB speed will have an edge where large amounts of data are to be moved around, but a 1.86GHz processor will gain little advantage because it's unlikely to be able to saturate such a fast bus. In other words the 1066MHz FSB system has more potential to be fast, but the slower CPU can't take full advantage of it.
This post has been edited by Platypus: Apr 7 2008, 08:01 AM -------------------- Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 1st December 2008 - 01:28 PM |
© 2003-2008 All Rights Reserved Bleeping Computer LLC.