Thread: Dual Core. Is it worth it?

Originally Posted by Muadib

You will notice an improvement in performance by running a dual core processor... Windows has sooo many threads running asynchronously that it saps performance... Offloading these background threads to multiple CPUs spreads the load...

I agree, run task manager and see how many processes are running. I assume you are dissatisfied with something else you wouldn't consider upgrading.

DD's right... Most people never tax their PCs that much... Let's face it, if the extent of your usage is running a web browser, word processing & spreadsheet apps, you don't need dual core... But when you start running memory / cpu intensive apps & games, you will notice a difference...

Originally Posted by Thetyim

I'm considering getting a new computer.

My present computer is a 3.2Mhz single core.
I usually only have one application running plus Skype, Incredimail & NOD32.
If I get a dual 2.2Mhz computer will my one application run faster or slower ?

You would be better off paying the insignificant difference in price to get the dual core CPUs -- simply because dual core CPUs are 64-bit capable. Single core are not.

This *will* make a difference *IF* you ever plan to install the 64-bit version of any Windows OS - notably that you will be able to address more than 3GB of RAM on your system. (Regular Windows XP can't use any more than 3GB of RAM, no matter how much you have installed, no matter what other 'experts' tell you).

In terms of where you will see the most difference in performance on your system, it is, quite simply, RAM and a fast hard drive. Most medium speed CPUs are quite fine for 90% of what you plan on doing - but the bottleneck is invariably when people skimp out on RAM (using systems with less than 2GB of RAM), or trudging along with olders, slow hard drives.

Of course, the catch-22 is that to use more than 3GB of RAM, you'll need a Dual Core CPU, and to utilize that, a 64-Bit operating system :-)

Barring that, get a decent 2.0GHz Core2Duo CPU, 3GB of RAM, and a fast (7200RPM) hard drive with a 16mb cache, and you will be fine - and set up that you can upgrade easily later, should you so choose, via a 64-Bit OS upgrade, to support more RAM.

(in other words, if you are considering Windows 7, go with the 64-bit version; if you are sticking with Windows XP, find the 64-bit version from your local Panthip Plaza ....)

3.2Ghz is quite a beast already, don't see why you would need something more than that, just for browsing and Skype (a bloated piece of crap)

not worth it,

I run a P3 900Mhz, with an Optimized Win2000 and it's super fast !!!

Originally Posted by Thetyim

I don't really understand all the jargon but the AMD have the memory control in the CPU and this is better than the Intel with a chip on the mobo.

I used to think AMDs were better, but the Intel Dual Core chips are unbeatable for the price. They also run very cool and are super efficient with power usage. You will not regret buying one.

Originally Posted by DaffyDuck

You would be better off paying the insignificant difference in price to get the dual core CPUs -- simply because dual core CPUs are 64-bit capable. Single core are not.

I don't understand that.
My D352 CedarMill 3.2 Mhz is 64bit
Why would it not be 64 bit capable?

Originally Posted by Thetyim

My D352 CedarMill 3.2 Mhz is 64bit
Why would it not be 64 bit capable?

You're lucky, it's a slighly crippled Cedar Mill renamed with the Celeron name, and has some decent overclocking potential for an older chip - it claims the famous '64-bit ready' statement, which implies some 64-bit capabilities, but you still end up being shortchanged on performance -- it only has 512kb of cache, lacks HyperThreading (so your multitasking suffers), and it lacks the advantages that 64-bit would give you.

I was talking about intel's current generation of Core2Duo CPUs, versus their prior Core Solo CPUs. You can't go wrong with any of their Core2Duo family.

Dual core can be had for as little as 2200b, core 2 duo start at 4000b