Dual core or single processor?

Has anyone noticed a performance difference between dual core and
single processors? The dual core is cheaper on Dell desktops, but a
friend tells me that dual cores produce too much heat, and that most
software can't take advantage of them.

Dual cores are supposed to be good for multitasking, but my
multitasking is running a video game, MS Word and Outlook Express at
the same time. Sometimes it takes 30 seconds or a minute to switch
between a game and MS Word. Would a dual core help with this?

Skyf

 

XP will take advantage of the dual core. While the applicaitons you have
mentioned (at least the MS ones) are not multithreaded, the OS will work
better with more apps because it can have the OE thread tree executing on 1
core, while the game, or Word is executing on another. Once the apps are
running, you can set an affinity for the application process to run on one,
the other, or (try to use) both cores. Most people dont worry about that,
and just open thier apps. by default windows will set every process affinity
to both cores.

Even if you arent using apps that can use both today, chances are that you
will in the next few years. Get on the wagon now so you dont have to worry
about it later. The thing you really want to think about is what will VISTA
do with the dual core. XP still has a few years left in it, but at some
point im sure you will contemplate how your rig will run the new OS's.

- NuTs

 

I have a standard P4/3.2Ghz machine with Hyper threading, 2GB RAM, and
an 128MB AGP 8x video card and play a couple games, Counter Strike,
Guild Wars, etc...

I bought a cheap Dual Core 2.8Ghz CPU, not HyperThreaded, a cheap $50
PCIx video card, and 3GB RAM (I had alternative uses than games) and was
able to play the games at the same level of FPS as the high-end P4 for
much less costs.

I took the Dual Core 2.8Ghz machine and installed Windows 2003 Server
standard and was able to support 15 users via Terminal Services running
a intensive application and all of their normal MS Office apps - no one
could tell the difference between the Terminal connection and their
normal P4 computer (they have 3.0+Ghz machines, 2GB RAM, etc...).

My choice from this point forward will be Dual Core CPU's and trying to
get Dual Core + Hyper Threading. I'm looking to build my first personal
workstation with Dual Dual Core CPU's (just to have one).

Switching between a game and Office could be a number of things, Drive
performance, RAM, etc... Dual CPU's will always help to some extent, but
I can't tell you how much.

 

I am going to try to stay with XP for at least 5 years. PC's have
finally gotten to the point where I don't see a need to upgrade. I
know, famous last words. MS will hook something into Vista that I
will probably want. I love the PC's I have now. They are fast enough
and doggonit people like them (obscure reference to Stuart Smalley).

 

If you wait until July 27, the Core 2 Duo will be widely available.
That CPU uses less power than even AMD and runs cooler.

Tom Lake

 

For workstation/server use I'd recommend checking out an Opteron system
as well. At my previous job we had some Opteron workstations from Sun,
and they were smoking fast (damn well better be for the price which was
in the 6-8 grand range). You can build a comparable white box for much
cheaper (about 5G for the one that cost 8G), and even run Solaris on it
for free. I'm quite curious to see how the new Core Duo 2's compare to
Opterons, they seem to give the FX a run for it's money.

 

Too much heat? "What the hell difference does that make. What, you mean he
would have to get a larger air conditioning unit in his house, or maybe keep
putting bags of ice on top of the cpu???

Dell may need some help in customer service, but do you think that they are
that stupid that they would design a system that would melt?

I don't know, call me crazy but if a processor puts out more heat... than
maybe they would put more fans in, or more air holes, or more heat sinks,
etc...

If that's what your friend thinks, than I suggest he buy only cars with V4's
in them, because the V8's probably put out way too much heat to work
properly.

As for dual core, it all depends on how fast and efficient you want your
computer to be. I'm not going to guess at which programs function better or
not with dual core, but I will make it real simple, without using any tech
talk or anything that I don't know anything about (like most others that
post to newsgroups do) I'm sure that a processor that can handle two tasks
simultaneously instead of only one is how shall I say... better!

I know I'm going out on a limb here, but my advice has always been to get
the fastest, biggest, best computer that you can afford on the day that you
buy it. It will be obsoleted before it is shipped, but you won't have
to question whether you should have bought a better one, only whether you
should have waited that extra day

 

The reviews of Intel's Conroe chip (now Core 2 Duo) state 20% faster than
AMD's fastest (FX-62) with power consumption down to 65 watts (75 for the
top of the line Core Duo 2).
Wait till release of Core 2 Duo to buy it or for massive price cuts by AMD.