like the topic says ... whats the difference between an intel dual core processor and the core2duo? they are both dual core but yet the core 2 costs more and such...

A dual core processor has two cores (essentially, two CPUs on one chip). Core2Duo is a specific dual-core processor design. Thus, all Core2Duo CPUs are dual-core CPUs, but not all Intel dual-core CPUs are Core2Duo designs.

Essentially all current Intel consumer dual-core CPUs today are Core2Duo designs. They have different names, but vary mostly in terms of their FSB speed (mostly, how quickly data can be transferred to/from RAM) and in the amount of cache memory in the CPU (cache memory is a relatively small amount of high-speed memory on the CPU chip that stores frequently-used data and instructions; it can improve performance 4-15% or so, depending on the amount).

holy **** theres a difference?!

so essentially there is no difference between the 2 beside the name? like for ex. are c2d more powerful than dc?

Like Mondoman said, dual core is a generic term representing 2 cores on a single die. Likewise, quad core represents 4 cores on a single die.

This is different from Core Duo and Core 2 Duo. These are micro-architectures for how the CPU operates. Core was Intel's first dual core architecture, and Core 2 is the "sequel" to Core.

So you see, a CPU can be a Core Duo with 2 cores, or it can be a Core 2 Duo with 2 cores. They are both dual core -- the difference is the micro-architecture.

Simply put, Core 2 is a faster, more powerful micro-architecture.

There's also a Pentium D which is dual-core before the Core Duo.

Ok, to sum this up with as little confusion as possible:
A dual-core processor is just that, a processor with 2 cores. A Core2Duo is a specific model from Intel. The Pentium Dual Core is based off of the "core" architecture. AMD also has dual-core processors, the X2 line. These aren't comparable by clock speed alone because they are made on a different architecture. seboj and Mondoman summed up some more specific details.

Example would be:
Pentium Dual Core- 2.0GHz 1MB L2 Cache 200Mhz FSB(dual-core)
Core2Duo- 1.86GHz 2MB L2 Cache 266MHz FSB(dual-core)
Athlon X2 5000 BE- 3.0GHz 1MB L2 Cache 1GHz HTT(dual-core)
Core2Extreme- 3.2GHz 2x4MB L2 Cache 333MHz FSB(quad-core)

Heh, I didn't mean to say that Core was the first dual core labeling, just that it came before Core 2.

so this processor here :

Intel Pentium Dual Core E2200 Processor BX80557E2200 - 2.20GHz, 1MB Cache, 800MHz FSB, Allendale, Dual Core, Retail, Socket 775, Processor with Fan

is weaker than this processor here? :

Intel Core 2 Duo E6320 Processor HH80557PH0364M - 1.86GHz, 4MB Cache, 1066MHz FSB, Conroe, Dual-Core, OEM, Socket 775, Processor

Nitpicking here.... it does not represent 2 cores on a single die, but rather two cores in a single package. The early dual and quad cores were two dies in one package (and some of them may still be for all I know). Mainly a technical difference which has no real impact on the correctness of the information you provided.

Core 2 Duo (C2D) is just the name for intel's most recent dual-core CPU based on the Core 2 architecture

Hm, I may need to research, but I thought they began as 2 cores 1 die.

I did see that I mistyped, however, about the quads:

Intel's first quads are 2 cores per 2 dies in 1 package.
AMD's quads are "native" in that they contain 4 cores on 1 die.

They are both core2 architecture. The only difference is the 1MB VS 4MB cache and the 800 VS 1066 FSB. If you don't have the cash it will do.

Ok. So I'm pretty much repeating what a lot of other people said. But I'll try to explain it.

A few years ago, Intels best processor was the Pentium 4. It had one processor inside of it. Then, Intel put two of those into one package to make a dual core processor. This merely means that there are two cores on one processor.

So there were two Pentium 4's inside the processor. A little less than two years ago, Intel introduced a new processor. It was a much more efficient design, and it came with two cores in one package by itself. Instead of putting two different processors in one package, it was just built like that natively. These new processors, called the Core 2 Duos beat the older Pentium D's (the dual core Pentium 4's) by a lot.

Since the introduction of the Core 2 Duos, there have been a few less powerful processors introduced, that were slightly different and at a lower price, but still based off of the same architecture. So, they were still dual core processors, but not necassarily a Core 2 Duo.

These less expensive processors typlically had a smaller amount of cache, and a lower Front Side Bus standard.

The models that only have 1mb of cache are named "Dual-Core" prrocessors, to seperate them as having less cache. It really means nothing, other than the less cache.

So, with the 65nm products, we have:
The Conroe Core 2 Duo- 4mb of cache and 1066fsb
The Allendale Core 2 Duo- 2mb of cache and 800fsb
The Allendale Dual-Core- 1mb of cahce and 800fsb
The Celeron Conroe-L single core- 512kb of cache and 800fsb

There are also corresponding 45nm parts, but those are not important in this discussion.

So pretty much these are all based off of the same architecture, but are named differently based on their different features. Pentium D dual core processors are not even close in comparison, and are not worth getting at this time.

About your question, with the only difference in those processors being the clock speed and the amount of cache, one will do better than the other depending on what you are doing. I think I would go with the E2200, because I think the higher clock speed would probably be more beneficial. And also it is a lot cheaper.

But it also depends on if you are overclocking or not.

AMD also has it's dual core processors, but I do not know the timeline of when those came into play, as when I started following computers the Penium D's and the Athlon X2's were already out.

Also I should mention that the Celeron I talked about is a single core processor, I think it has one of the cores turned off.

He's not gonna know about overclocking, yes, for games an e2200 is weaker than an e6300 because games like cache a lot more than a little speed. Also the 6600 are "stronger than 6300's".

What do you mean? Well, I do know what you mean. But what does that have to do with this? You mean because the 6300 only has 2mb of cache? But still, we weren't really talking about e6600 vs. e6300.

I answered because no one directly answered his question, there was a lot of good replies, but not a concise answer.

Just trying to give a general lay of the land, without all the confusion.

However, we were talking about cache. I do like the "stronger than..."

I think my answer was as concise as one could be... no?

Like this above answer...great reply, but if he is just wondering, "Is it better to use and if I just put in a game, which one is better ?", it might help to just give a concise answer based on real usage and not theoretical maybe's. GAMES like the larger cache, it's a fact, why is that such a bad answer ? If he doesen't know the difference yet, you honestly think he's gonna be an overclocker and know what he's doing, or more of a put the stuff in and go guy ?