| Computing.Net: Over 1,000,000 posts about all things technology related! Over 90% answered within 24 hours! Click here to sign up now, it's free! |
stupid ?? on dual core.. PCs
|
Original Message
|
Name: Jared37
Date: April 15, 2007 at 15:26:49 Pacific
Subject: stupid ?? on dual core.. PCsOS: XP ProCPU/Ram: amd 2400+ / 1 Ghz |
Comment: Hi all .. hey let me ask this. I have a question on the dual core PCs.. I mean I know they now have quad core as well but I don’t need that. But is there REALLY a big difference between that and what I have now?? I have an AMD 2400+ which runs at 2 Ghz.. from what I understand about dual core is that it takes the load off the main processor if you are doing multi tasking stuff. .. so does your system automatically send background things to the other processor or is it spread out between them. I guess what I am asking is. Is it REALLY faster than mine?? If you are not multi tasking. Doesn’t software have to be written to specifically take advantage of dual core or no? I have seen AMD processors listed as like 4600+ etc. what speeds are they actually running at?? .. I dunno if I am making any sense here or not. Please clue me in. thanks.
Report Offensive Message For Removal
|
|
Response Number 1
|
Name: Samt1516
Date: April 15, 2007 at 16:14:41 Pacific
|
Reply: (edit)Hi, it depends on what you use them for. Dual-cores are good for multi-tasking, because they basically have two processors, each core running at around 2Ghz will actually mean you get an effective speed of around 4Ghz. If you run graphical or multimedia software they can make a big difference. Sam Biscuits are good, but keep the crumbs off your keyboard!
Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal
|
|
Response Number 3
|
Name: Samt1516
Date: April 15, 2007 at 19:11:18 Pacific
|
Reply: (edit)Whoops, sorry. I think I believed an advert or something, it IS faster though, right? About 50% faster? Good link. Sam Biscuits are good, but keep the crumbs off your keyboard!
Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal
|
|
Response Number 4
|
Name: Jared37
Date: April 16, 2007 at 14:38:01 Pacific
|
Reply: (edit)Ok well this is the thing. I will be using the PC to play games and I don’t really think a dual core will do me any good. I prefer to stick to AMD. So what is the way to go?? I mean what else besides dual and quad cores?? .. as I said my PC is now running about 2 Ghz. But I would like to get a faster one. Thanks guys..
Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal
|
|
Response Number 5
|
Name: Samt1516
Date: April 16, 2007 at 21:35:07 Pacific
|
Reply: (edit)Currently (it pains me to say) AMD chips are nowhere near as good as Intel chips. An E6400 intel would be a good choice. If you do go AMD, I'd say get a dual-core anyway, an AM2 5200+ is a solid choice, you might only notice the difference when multitasking, but it's probably still worth it. It really depends if you want to upgrade your mobo as well. Sam Biscuits are good, but keep the crumbs off your keyboard!
Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal
|
|
Response Number 6
|
Name: Sabertooth
Date: April 16, 2007 at 23:55:56 Pacific
|
Reply: (edit)Multi-core CPUs are inevitable & with the way they are priced these days there isn't really any disadvantage to owning one on those puppies Intel or AMD. BTW, some die-hards are still pushing the envelope with select single core CPUs. At some point if you decide you want a test-bed exercise for your high clock frequency desires, the links below may come in handy. Good luck! P4 641 (3.2GHz) @ 4.56GHz & 5GHz Celeron D 352 (3.2GHz) @ 5GHz
Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal
|

Post Locked
This post is quite old and has been locked from receiving new replies. Please create a new posting instead.
Go to CPUs/Overclocking Forum Home