Community weekly poll: Will you be moving to a dual-core processor soon?
- 1/24/06 2:48 PM
Yes, I plan on moving to a dual core in 2006
by yipsl - 1/24/06 8:14 PM In reply to: Will you be moving to a dual-core processor soon? by Marc Bennett
The only decision is whether I go Athlon X2 3800+ as early as I can afford it or if I wait for Conroe/Allendale. There's no way I'd go with a Smithfield or Pressler Netburst CPU. I already have a P4 Northwood 2.8 gigahertz and the Northwoods were the only half way decent P4's.
Core Duo on the desktop sounds good, but is likely to be too expensive. My wife and I do 3D graphics, play games and mod, as well as record television to our hard drive with an All in Wonder card, so dual core multitasking sounds good to me.
I just want a dual core that does more work per clock cycle and that leaves out the current Prescott derived dual cores.
Already Have
by frj11 - 1/24/06 8:14 PM In reply to: Will you be moving to a dual-core processor soon? by Marc Bennett
I am running an Intel p4 3.4 Ghz dual core processor under windows XP professional.
Only with a few applications can I see any dramatic improvement over my previous Intel 2.8 Ghz processor. In my judgment until the software get better at parsing out the job and balancing the load between the two CPU no remarkable improvement will be seen.
Buying new Mac
by jameyfrank - 1/24/06 8:18 PM In reply to: Will you be moving to a dual-core processor soon? by Marc Bennett
My next purchase will be an iMac dual-core. the price and features are unbelievable, and OS X is rock stable and secure.
Dual Core Processors
by Just4fun - 1/24/06 8:25 PM In reply to: Will you be moving to a dual-core processor soon? by Marc Bennett
I would like to see an article telling how dual cores divide up the tasks. Also, what software will run and use the dual core feature?
What versions of Windows will work?
Do you need the latest version of software?
How does a 32 bit 3 year old application run on an AMD dual core vs an Intel.
These kind of answers might help decide:
Do I really want a Dual core?
Which one?
What is the real cost for total performance?
Cnet.com has a nice comparison of AMD and Intel Dual Cores
by Zeppo - 1/24/06 11:00 PM In reply to: Dual Core Processors by Just4funGo here: http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7-6389077-1.html?tag=lnav
enjoy paying hundreds of dollars extra for nothing
by Jeema - 1/24/06 8:32 PM In reply to: Will you be moving to a dual-core processor soon? by Marc Bennett
the best hardware in the world is useless without the right software to take advantage of it.
but it will definitely relieve that heavy feeling in your wallet.
Not entirely true...
by Zeppo - 1/24/06 11:21 PM In reply to: enjoy paying hundreds of dollars extra for nothing by JeemaHaving software that can use both cores of a processor certainly is better. However, anyone who multi-tasks (and you may not be one of those persons but I am) can benefit from a dual core system. It is not uncommon at all these days to have several browser windows open along with an email and word processor program going. Many young people access a music site or use Windows Media player to play music while sufing.
Dual core systems don't bog down like single cpu systems. Certainly, there are many folks out there who, for what they use a computer for, don't need dual core. But there are large numbers out there who maximize the use of their computers - these folks will find dual core systems far better than the old single processor systems.
I've used a Dual CPU P3 system now for over 4 years, and will never go back to a single cpu or one core system. My current computer is a new AMD Athlon X2 4800+ (dual core, 64 bit capable) system, which replaced the old P3. BTW, I do have a software program that uses the dual cores but I am also very use to the response times of simply opening applications and moving from web page to web page with ease. I enjoy this sense of free movement.
well that maybe good.
by top_flight_steelers - 1/27/06 1:44 AM In reply to: Not entirely true... by Zeppobut as a hobist on a very tight budget I really have to wait for the cost to come down. and really I'am not the most demanding person on a computer anyway but I really do look forword (Lord Willing) to building a good 64 but system when I can afford it. By then the cost will be down some and there will be more programs out there to take advantage of the 64 bit systems..and anyone who thinks that the 64 bit cpu's won't make that big of a difference has forgot the sony ps 1..huge possiblity for improved graphics. so when I can I hope too.
hundreds of dollars? look up the parts!
by cgilmo78 - 1/25/06 7:44 AM In reply to: enjoy paying hundreds of dollars extra for nothing by Jeemafrom newegg.com
AMD Athlon 64 3800+ Venice 1GHz FSB Socket 939 Processor Model ADA3800BPBOX - Retail
282$
AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ Manchester 1GHz FSB Socket 939 Dual Core Processor Model ADA3800BVBOX - Retail
313$
We are only talking about a 31$ price difference here, its a no brainer!
Probably not, but at least I know I can!
by TrackStar1682 - 1/24/06 8:43 PM In reply to: Will you be moving to a dual-core processor soon? by Marc Bennett
My new Alienware Area-51 3500 has a single core, hyper threaded Pentium 4 processor. With the board I have, I've got a foundation that will support a dual core, if I ever decide it's worth the price. For what I do though, it will most likely be unnecessary that I'd need one, so I'm voting no.
Athlon X2 3800
by umft7d - 1/24/06 8:45 PM In reply to: Will you be moving to a dual-core processor soon? by Marc Bennett
I bought one of these bad boys right after christmas, and I have to say that for the money, it's the best processor I've ever purchased. Currently running it slightly OC'd on my A8N-SLI board with no problems, and the thing is insanely fast (especially, as would be expected, in multitasking).
At just a bit over the three hundred dollar mark, this was a great deal IMO. It's really great being able to encode video for my PSP and play a game or surf the net at the same time.
AMD, you've made a great processor.
Maybe my next machine
by lakephillip - 1/24/06 8:46 PM In reply to: Will you be moving to a dual-core processor soon? by Marc Bennett
I just plunked down 1900$ For a Sony RA Liquid Cooled Comp in Sept 04....at that price I'll be using this computer until I build one with an AMD proc. A word to sony======================
INTEL/SONY/MICROSOFT MEDIA CENTER EDITION Sucks bad.
Roy has both..AMD Runs circles around dual core sooo slowww.
by Roy312 - 1/24/06 9:15 PM In reply to: Will you be moving to a dual-core processor soon? by Marc Bennett
Maybe it's because it's a Dell...lol XPS400 is a really big scammmm intel & Dell put together..
Go to RIPOFFREPORT.com type in Dell XPS400...NUFF SAID
I CAN IGNORE PERFORMANCE FIGURES FOR ATLEAST TWO MORE YEARS
by apocolypse2000_99 - 1/24/06 10:02 PM In reply to: Will you be moving to a dual-core processor soon? by Marc Bennett
As previous persons have said, these performance figures are just bragging rights. Only in benchmarks you see big differences that aren't realised or fathomed by people in everyday tasks.
I will line up my wallet when common hard drives can transfer 12-150GB(Gigabytes, not gigabits persecond)
A cheap hard drive starts at 15 terabytes or even an exabyte
Home Broadband transfers are the speed of a common ata 133 hard drive or even faster
and the new dell XPS 600 Renegade becomes a stand to put my feet on when watching a 50inch plasma i spent $1000 for.
thats great
by cgilmo78 - 1/25/06 7:21 AM In reply to: I CAN IGNORE PERFORMANCE FIGURES FOR ATLEAST TWO MORE YEARS by apocolypse2000_99thats great, but some of us want to play MMORPG's at maxed settings. Some of us want to run 3-d modeling software quicker. You may be able to ignore the performance figures, but those that need (want) the high power CPU cannot.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
