X300 1.2Ghz core 2 duo = 2.4Ghz solo core?

[Bashar]

I'm thinking about the X300 over and over the only thing stopping me from taking a decision is the processor speed.

but the question is:
core 2 duo of 1.2Ghz = 2.4Ghz solo core?

Thanks.

[aaa]

That depends on what you're doing.

For any one thing, the answer is often no.

But say you are doing 2 CPU-using things. Then you do get roughly equivalent to 2.4.

[XIII]

For C2D, the speed does not scale linearly with MHz. That is the old MHz myth that has been going around for a long time ago.

[SHoTTa35]

Dual core CPUs don't work that way... it's only a 1.2Ghz PC still. You can almost think of it this way tho....

If you had 1 x 2.4Ghz machine versus say 2 x 1.2Ghz machines... which do you think would get more work done? That is if you had enough eyes and hands to operate both of them at the sametime. The dual machine you could get a lot of work done faster because you can do 2 things at once. Surely with a 2.4ghz PC you can get some stuff done faster therefore making you move on to the next thing sooner but as well all know, 2.4Ghz isn't 100% faster than 1.2Ghz. It's maybe 20-40% faster at one thing. Here's some math for you.

PC 1 - 2.4Ghz
You gotta do some work with an application that will crunch some numbers and all - this takes 100 seconds

Run another application that does something else for 100 seconds

And another for 100 Seconds.

Total = 300 consecutive seconds


PC 2 - 1.2Ghz (single core) - Same as above

140 seconds

140 seconds

140 seconds

Total = 420 seconds


PC 2 - 1.2Ghz Dual Core - same as above

180 seconds BUT

180 seconds at the same running the other.

120 seconds (maybe less) for third

Total - 300 seconds.

This is all assuming all other components are the same. So as you can see, it would be about the same as first machine. And that's giving the 2.4Ghz machine a 40% advantage. We all know with apps that are multithreaded can see great (50% or more) advantages on a dualcore CPU vs another that's 100% faster.

[Shurato]

From what I understand, a single core CPU is good if your work is focussed on one application needing as much processor speed as possible. Since the thing is, if that application does not support multiple CPU, then it would just use one CPU on a dual-core machine and the 2nd core would be so to say idling around and just be used for some other desktop tasks.
Dual-core CPU come in handy when performing different tasks at the same time, such as having one main application doing its work, listening to some music in the background, possibly ripping a CD as well, unpacking a large file and in general just switching between tasks to keep up with all the - let' say - information overload
There are applications harnessing the benefit from multiple CPU support, such as Photoshop, some 3D animation Software and others professional applications.
Let's trust that multiple CPU support will be a standard for all applications in the future.

[SaberX]

I must say i tested out the Core2duo today on my Dell.
I had Nero8 Vison open.Had a few home movies there i wanted to make a DVD disk out of.So i have a 500meg AVI movie.Open Nero8 Vision and started to make a dvd disk.Said it take 50 min's.So away it went...
Than i unpluged the power and brought it upstairs.Under battery still burning the dvd.When i got upstairs i was useing the internet(IE7).All was still going fine.Then i wanted to test it more.I opened itunes and started playing some songs.
So i had Nero burning a dvd , itunes playing songs , and on the internet(facebook , gmail and thinkpad.com forum ) all running on battery.
While all this was going on the system dident slow down from what i could tell.The wireless was just as fast as the only thing going.
One hr later the dvd was done and worked great.
As fast as the A31P with the 2ghz is, while burning a cd-r , it does slow down a bit.
I like the Core2duo cpu's.