I am building a gaming machine. I have been looking into what the difference is with the 45nm and the 65nm. I'm finding a lot of info saying that the 45nm sucks. I don't know why they would say this. So please tell me what you think.
Thanks.
45nm performs better than a 65nm ( if it's the same clock speed, cores). if you want a machine that is totally tricked out so it will play the newest games, get a intel core 2 quad q6600. it will run everything smoothly, but you might wanna overclock it for more performance. if you already have chosen that you're not gonna spend a ton on top of the line $300 graphics card so you can play all the newest and future games, just get a fast core 2 duo, beceause if you only play the games of today and the past, those apps wont utilize all 4 cores, and you end up basically wasting money.
Hmm... if you are looking at the same processor (say 3.0 ghz core2duo quad) then the smaller of the two is nearly always better.
If you are overclocking it could be a different story. I'd go with the newer (smaller) on personally.
Here's a good resource on the issue
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/wolfdale-shrinks-transistors,1773-2.html
It says (in part):
"So, where does Intel stand following its 45 nm Core 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_2 Wolfdale launch? Compared to the 65 nm Core 2 Conroe core, the device offers slightly more performance in most of our benchmarks. For some of the benchmarks, its performance merely matched that of the 65 nm Core 2 Conroe core. Needless to say, it also beats all of AMD's Athlon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athlon 64 X2 or Athlon X2 dual-core offerings. It also beats AMD's Phenom quad-core http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-core processors for applications that haven't been optimized for multi-core processors."
I have a quad core, it is extremely stable even though I have it overclocked 2.4 to 3.0 ghz per core and it runs flat out (100% utilization on all cores at all times with a stock fan) doing simulations.
For most programs though, quad core won't make much difference until OS 10.6 (Mac) and maybe Windows 7.
Hmm... if you are looking at the same processor (say 3.0 ghz core2duo quad) then the smaller of the two is nearly always better.
If you are overclocking it could be a different story. I'd go with the newer (smaller) on personally.
Here's a good resource on the issue
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/wolfdale-shrinks-transistors,1773-2.html
It says (in part):
"So, where does Intel stand following its 45 nm Core 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_2 Wolfdale launch? Compared to the 65 nm Core 2 Conroe core, the device offers slightly more performance in most of our benchmarks. For some of the benchmarks, its performance merely matched that of the 65 nm Core 2 Conroe core. Needless to say, it also beats all of AMD's Athlon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athlon 64 X2 or Athlon X2 dual-core offerings. It also beats AMD's Phenom quad-core http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-core processors for applications that haven't been optimized for multi-core processors."
I have a quad core, it is extremely stable even though I have it overclocked 2.4 to 3.0 ghz per core and it runs flat out (100% utilization on all cores at all times with a stock fan) doing simulations.
For most programs though, quad core won't make much difference until OS 10.6 (Mac) and maybe Windows 7.