[AlxRsstr]

Is a Intel Pentium 4 CPU 3.00ghz (2 CPUs) faster than a Intel Core 2 Quad-Core Processor Q6600 (2.40GHz, 8MB, 1066MHz), because the first processor is an older one with a higher GHz yet dell are now doing the second one that a smaller GHz. I can't tell which ones the fastest.

All help appreciated.

[link590o]

4 cores == VASTLY superior to a single core.

it splits the load across all 4 cores, and drastically...and i mean that with heavy emphasis. DRASTICALLY improves performance.

you really have to read some benchmarks to figure out what's the fastest.

it may be running at a lower gigahertz speed, but depending on the architecture and manufacturing process used, it can outperform a similar cpu with a slightly higher ghz speed.

[AlxRsstr]

Cool cheers, I thought it just depended upon the GHz but obviously not. Thanks once again.

[Cew27]

i always looked upon it as a dual core is 2 little single core processors

[alex]

Fasted processor currently on the market?

In my opinion it's a toss up between the Xeon X5482 or the QX9770.

But these are extremely expensive cpu's. So taking bang for buck into it, no, neither. I'd have to say the E6750 or the Q6600. Using performance per watt, power consumption and cost as the criteria.

Taking overclocking into it as well as the above 3 criteria: Q6600.

AMD's new Phenom doesn't get a look in. Considering it's a 'true' quad (assembled from a single die) rather than two dual's basically glued together like the Q6600 as an example (this also increases the manufacturing process folks because if one single core is faulty guess where the other 3 go?) And where does that cost get re-cooped...... Go on, take a wild guess.