Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="LightPhoenix" data-source="post: 3224418" data-attributes="member: 115">In general, I think the dual-core (and soon to be release quad-core) systems are generally better, but clock speed, for the most part, hasn't been very relevant for a while.  This is because the limiting factor with video games, which is really what determines the cutting edge, hasn't been clock speed but the video care and RAM.  You're much more likely to be able to run an application/game if you meet those requirements first, and clock speed second.What really makes them better though, IMO, besides the improved multitasking, is that they consume a lot less power, meaning they run colder, which is always good.So, to answer your questions more directly...A game that runs smooth on a 2GHz solo system will likely run fine on the 1.6 dual-core system, provided that you have the same amount of RAM and the same video card.You won't be screwed if a game "requires" 3.0Ghz with a 2.8 Dual-Core... in fact, you might even get slightly better performance, because of the multitasking capabilities.Right this minute, if I were to buy a new processor, I'd go with an Intel Core 2 - there's really only one model, the Conroe.  I would avoid the Conroe XE, which is a souped up version that was quite expensive and not, IMO, worth it.  I haven't checked prices, but I'd go with something that offered a good balance between price and clock speed, edging on the side of price.</blockquote>

Verification