Celeron 440 vs C2D E6300

[The Halk]

My old dad has a Dell box I got cheap for him. Just a refurbished one. I'm going to move him to Windows 7, and I'll need to upgrade RAM to do that.

I'm also thinking I may as well upgrade the processor, and go dual core to give it a bit more power.

It has a Celeron 440, and I'm considering putting a C2D E6300 in instead. The Celeron 440 runs at 2Ghz, and the C2D runs at 1.83Ghz.

I'm no Intel expert, so I thought I'd ask... for single core tasks will the C2D be at least as fast as the Celeron, even though the C2D has a slightly lower clock speed?

 

[Garido]

One would assume that for most task the Core 2 Duo you have mentioned will provide better results in applications that can make use of the extra core. Just double check whether your systems mainboard is compatible with the processor first.

 

[The Halk]

for single core tasks will the C2D be at least as fast as the Celeron, even though the C2D has a slightly lower clock speed?

 

[Biohazard]

Yes, probably more so depending on the application.

440 is 800mhz fsb 512kb cache

e6300 is 1066mhz fsb 2048kb cache

the architecture is the same i believe.

 

[MikeHiow]

Have a look here, where they compare your Dad's chip against an E2140 (1.6GHz).

http://ixbtlabs.com/articles2/cpu/intel-celeron-420-440-page1.html

Also, as for them being the same architecture, I thought this generation of Celeron was the same sort of architecture as the Pentium 4/Ds?

 

[The Halk]

I don't think it's the same architecture, the Prescotts weren't 65nm as far as I'm aware...

In any case, I think clock for clock it won't be noticably slower, so it'll do the job I think. See you in the other thread Mike!

 

[jamesfreddie]

The C2D will be better for windows 7. I have had windows 7 running on P4 3GHz and it was OK. But if you can get a C2D Quite Cheap.