Verified answer

2.9 is respectable. 3.1 is beasty. I'd say go for the 3.1 because it'll take longer for that to become outdated and useless. You'll get more time before you need to upgrade out of the 3.1. If you can swing it, generally you want to go more expensive on your components.

If you want to check performance, look at Tom's Hardware and look at his performance tests.

That would depend on more details about the chips architecture.

There is more to a CPU's performance than simply clock speeds. Things like cache size, manufacturing process etc are also important information about a chip.

Try to add the model numbers of the CPU's you are speaking of, that would allow us to know for sure whether or not there will be a significant difference.

All things being the same, except for clock speed, you will not see a noticeable difference between 2.9 and 3.1.

There is not really a significant performance increase, however, more power is always better. But, if you're not really going to be doing any process intensive programs, then a 2.9 Ghz is more than enough.

Hope this helped! :)

2.9 is good enough ...i have a AMD x2 64 2.6 ghz with a 1000 gig hard drive ...and my computer is super fast......just get the 2.9 .....and by the way AMD is better than INTEL in my opinion

dudes get the core 2 duo beast and not only the dual core.