Originally posted by jordo_99
so is there even much of a difference in performance then? I'd guess that the "core 4 duo?" would OC to be much better than the other one but i don't know why they would have them priced so closely unless there isn't much of a difference.
still...two C2D's in one sounds freaking awesome
they dont OC as well on stock cooling because it gets very hot due to two x6800's producing double the amount of heat. but with any good air or watercooling, and definitely phase change systems if ur rich enough, heat isnt a problem anymore so i should be able to clock mine exactly the same.
Core 2 doesnt stand for how many cores there are but what generation they are. first gen was Core, which were the yonah laptop chips. hence the name Core Duo
Now it is Core 2 which are the second gen, merom, conroe and woodcrest. so the kentsfield is still the second gen. hence the name Core 2 Duo! so the kentsfield is actually called core 2 quad but in this case its the extreme. i agree tho, it would be sweet if it was called core 4 extreme
there is a major difference in performance if the program ur running can utilise all 4 cores. 3ds max saw a 80-100% speed increase in graphic rendering. but any program that cant use them wont run any faster. and if u dont OC then actually run slower. im just getting it because i do graphic design etc and will be able to use the power that it has.
plus most games being released q3/q4 2007 and on will be able to use the multiple cores and some games will even need them. so its a bit of futureproofing too
. whew well that was my rant for the day! lol