lazybummm

iTrader: (3)

+1 for that, get a 10k drive and you'll like it much better. Is there even that much software optimized for dual core yet? Basically multiprocessing...It is really pointless unless the specifc software is optmized take advantage of the 2 cores/cpus

GotBoost?

iTrader: (3)

a dual core processor is essentially the same as having 2 separate PROCESSORS, the difference here is that the dual core processor is a single chip that has 2 processors inside it. This will allow you much better multitasking capabilities, much faster system performance overall.....and will also be a MUCH more efficient system. Because one "core" can handle things like graphics rendering, audio and video, while the other "core" simultaneously will take care of all the communications, and system components needed for system stability. Dual core processors really are the wave of the future......single core processors have reached a "ceiling" as far as how fast they can go, due to limitations from heat buildup within the chip. So naturally how do you make a computer go faster than ~3GHz without compromising system stability? Add another processor to it! while you may still only have a 3GHz machine, you can double the amount of work you can accomplish at 3Ghz.

kinda like if you are digging a swimming pool......sure you can do it all by yourself......but if you have 2 people working on it, you will get it done twice as fast.

-Ted

lazybummm

iTrader: (3)

I'm not extremely familiar with how dual core's are built, but there are different kinds of multiprocessing, the analogy for 2 people digging in a swimming pool(same process) is typical of SMP,

The other example you mentioned sounds more like ASMP.

I am no technical expert, but did sell computer for many years. For most people, browsing the web or do ms office, a dual core is completely utterly unncessary, in fact, a PIII will do that.

I guess if you're actually gonna use software like photoshop that take advantage of dual processor, go for it...

I remember building a dual celeron 300a and overclocking each to 450mhz...man I thought that was so cool, and back then I had to run nt4 to use dual cpu(most of the time I used win 98), what a pain...and I got rid of it right before 2000 was released, didn't get to reap the benefits

bclee

iTrader: (1)

I do a lot of image processing (including PhotoShop) and I've tried to stick to multi-processor (and now dual core) machines for years now. Even if your applications don't know enough to use both processors/cores, if you ever do anything that will peg one of them the second one will let you go on as if nothing was happening. I've actually had a process go nuts and use 100% of a processor, and not even notice for a day or two.

However I've heard Windows doesn't tend to support multiple processors/cores very well, but maybe the push Intel is making with the dual core chips will fix that? Other operating systems (I've mostly used Linux and recently OS X for real work, Windows only for games) have had good multiprocessor support for years, how long can it take Windows to catch up?

You've gotta be joking. Is this some operating system that comes as a free prize in the bottom of a cereal box?

mcowger

iTrader: (8)

Ermm. Windows 98 is single proc. Windows 2000 Wks and Win XP Home is limited to 2.

RallyWagon

I want to THANK ALL OF YOU SO MUCH for the information you have shared here. It has been a TREMENDOUS HELP. I have decided to go with the Dual Core Processor because of its superior multi tasking capabilities.

illusion

iTrader: (10)

Ok a few misconceptions here. Dual Core are still treated as a single processor by Windows XP, it knows the difference between two hyper threading(4 logical) processors and 2 separate processors..

Some people seem a little mixed up, Dual core is no where close to the same as Core Duo. Dual core is a pair of P4s in the same package(although actually the same die), netting you the now typical signature Intel oven inside of your computer. While it is ok for multitasking, most people don't really understand the benefit. If you're encoding a movie and want to surf the web at the same time, multitasking is nice, or you can just lower the priority of the encoding process. Core duo is Intel’s latest attempt at the mobile computing market, it is based off of the Dothan P4M. I run a 2ghz dothan with the multiplier dropped and the FSB cranked making it a 3ghz dothan just about(P4C800E-dlx motherboard, with Asus CT-479 adapter and a dothan 760). Every benchmark I've done molests it regular intel counterparts as well as the high end AMDs, all on air cooling using the heatsink that came with the CT-479 adapter.

Why Intel won't take the bull by the horns and give up on its gimmick instruction sets such as hyper threading and net burst and concentrate on a known fantastic core I'll never understand. The dothan runs MUCH cooler, has much more capability, and is cheaper because it's running on an old Intel process.

Here's some reading on the Dothan http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/05/...st/page11.html Core Duo NOT to be confused with P4d or Dual Core P4s is somewhat like a pair of dothans under the same hood. Also note on the Tom's hardware review of the dothan, they were using an older version of the Asus bios, the newer bios unlocks the multiplier which let me crank the FSB WAY above the 160 they were able to make it to, I run 275mhz FSB with an 11:1 mult which still clocks the processor at 3ghz, but gets my bus speeds up and runs my memory at 1.11ghz versus 640Mhz that Tom's was using, that is one of the reasons in real world apps the Dothan creams the competition, but in synthetic marks it drops down. Also here's some reading on Core Duo http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/01/...cker_response/


Oh and how does a Dothan stand up? Running at 3ghz with a 7800gs vid card I get about 45fps playing City of Villains with all of the pretty stuff set to max...... at 1080p which is 1920 x 1080, and it looks so pretty on the 62" Mitsubishi. The best part is that I managed to salvage and old 2.4ghz P4C that was over clocked to 3.2g and was nearing it's end of live after I picked up an Athlon 64 4000+ setup. The dothan was cheaper than the Athlon and CRUSHES it. I couldn't handle gaming on my bigscreen with the athlon because I either had to drop the resolution or deal with BAD lag. My 8 year old son now has my A64 4000+ setup.


To the original post, for every day use the 630 performs better than the 820, on rare occasions the dual core will shine, but not often, it's just another intel gimmick.

Look at the benchmarks here http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/11/...05/page24.html You'll realize why I picked an Athlon 64 4000+ over a dual core Athlon 64 X2 4600+, the single core 4000 is MUCH faster, as is the intel's fluff of the same dual core BS.

Unless your application is coded to use multiple processors, as 99% of applications aren't, you will see NO benefit AT ALL going to dual core, if anything it is a hindrance.


I must admit that intel does do some mighty fine Advertising.


*edited for my usuall **** poor spelling*