Core Duo vs Dual Core ?
 

Is there a difference in the two ?

I'm assuming that you are referring to "Core 2 Duo" compared to "Pentium Dual-Core".

There is a significant difference. Core 2 Duos are much faster, as Pentium Dual-Cores are really just older Core (1) Duos stripped of some features.

Unless you are editing DV (and probably not HDV) you would likely want something more powerful than either though.

Greg

Big time difference....
Anybody who waited out DualCore, and went to Core2Duo, did themselves a great favour...

"Unless you are editing DV (and probably not HDV) you would likely want something more powerful than either though."

Really? Than what are most people editing on? Are most people already using quad cores? How effective is the Core 2 duo for editing HDV?

Core 2 Duo should handle HDV OK. My old HP with AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core edited HDV but rendering was a tad slow.

Once I started working with AVCHD the old machine didn't cut it so I got a machine with Intel Q6600 (quad core). I'm working primarily with an Intel Core i7 now and appreciating the heck out of it.

Judging from the posts on this forum, I'd guess that most folks here use quads for editing nowadays. A Core 2 dual core CPU (or a fast Athlon 64 X2) can generally handle HDV (not AVCHD) reasonably. The first Intel dual core processors (Pentium dual core CPUs) were pretty anemic.

There is a difference. The core duo was the interim release and is only 32-bit and has lesser cache. The core 2 duo (C2D) has better cache, and can run 64-bit OS/apps. It is also about 10% faster.

There is also the Pentium Dual Core (PDC). I believe it is also only 32-bit and has limited memory cache. For daily use, and light editing, save some money and get just get the PDC.

If you edit heavily, and expect to be editing a lot, go for a C2D, even a quad core. Even the older Qxxxx series will be faster. It will half the time in rendering. Thus, a 10 min render in a C2D will just be around 5 min with a quad. The i7s are even faster. I won't be surprised if you can get 3 min with i7s.

AVCHD and C2D editing. Possible. I just tried it yesterday with my 3 year old 1505 2.0ghz ati x1400 gpu Dell notebook. Only occassional stutter on playback on full 15" LCD 1650 x 1050 screen, 2gb 667 ram, 160gb 5400rpm HD. Not bad. And editing in vegas is easy natively. Render times is about 1:1.5 ratio with just simple cuts. But expect 1:2.3-2.5 with filters. So, a 5 min clip will likely render in 10-12 min with avchd. I am talking rendering to mpeg2 files ready for dvd mastering.

HDV is easy even on a C2D. So, no need to discuss it. So is SD.

If you intend to do lots of editing, best to go quad. The i7s is the best now. It's even faster than the Qxxxx series even if both are quad cores. However, a decent C2D with the proper software can also work even with AVCHD. For a desktop, the lowest gpu like the ATI HD xxxx will playback smoothly with low cpu load. Just get the fastest 2.4-2.6 or 3ghz C2D for rendering. But if you ask me, a 2.6-3.0ghz C2D cpu is about the same price as a Q8200 or Q8400, so I'd just get a Qxxxx quad. This is desktop of course. There's no lower priced quads for notebooks/laptop yet. Maybe end of this year. If you go for a notebook, just pick the fastest C2D notebook, and put 4gb or ram at least.

A lot of folks don't seem to realize it yet, but the new Phenom II X4 CPUs from AMD offer a cost effective alternative to Intel's Core 2 quads (Qxxxx). A Phenom II 940 (3GHz quad) is roughly on par with a Q9550, performance wise, yet costs less than $200. Lately, Newegg has been offering some Phenom II & motherboard combos (w/onboard ATI HD accelerated graphics - quite adequate for general HD editing purposes) at less than the cost of a Q9550 all by itself.