Dual Core System: Pro's & Cons

[Goob]

Hey all, I am thinking of getting a total pc upgrade within the next few months and am interested in going a dual core system, but am wanting to know the pro's and cons of doing this.
I'd probably be more likely to go a dual core Intel system than an AMD as the intel chips seem to be a lot better than amd at the moment.

So if anyone could help me it'd be greatly appreciated

[Blues]

actually after lookin at the info on the web AMD is still better then Intel the DDR2 Ram on Intel give very little preformance boost over the AMD and for the cost difference of the ram and the CPU it aint worth it the AMD with DDR2 also aint quiet up to par with the Intel with DDR2 but it is still cheaper. Over all AMD is still great also AMD use alot less power and generate alot less heat.

[agarath]

I don't know whats happened in the space of time since the previous post, and December when I built Beast. But I can stand up and say that Intel has literally put the boots to AMD. And if AMD's most recent forays into the world of quad core processors is any example...Its going to stay that way for a quarter or two. Maybe even longer.

This dual core machine is GREAT. I know on a regular basis dl torrents listen to mp3's surf, and burn cds/DvDs ALL AT THE SAME TIME.

I'd originally thought to go AMD X2 but seeing performance and heat issues laid out at a few North American hardware sites. I changed my mind. Now I did go way out on a limb for a cutting edge motherboard and got very lucky (according to the E-vga forums).

If your thinking dual core seriously consider Intel

[Stealth]

If you're thinking of a dual-core machine, first check if you even need it. Contrary to popular belief, two cores don't add up to double the speed - they add up to 1.41 times the normal speed if you're lucky and you know how to optimize your tasks between CPUs. Most if not all of today's applications (and games!) can only utilize one CPU at a time, the other acting as a dead weight - unless you manually distribute, say, WinAMP, Firefox, or a download manager to the other core. If you're planning on a rendering workstation, a dualcore's fine and well, but even for hardcore gaming, they're a very expensive investment which may not pay itself off in performance terms.

[agarath]

Good point Stealth. I still think that if a person is doing a major upgrade or a new build then dual core is the way of the future. It's just a matter of time before we start to see apps being built to take advantage of the extra die.

The Intel line is due to price drop soon I hear so it may be useful to wait just a bit to see what goes down and by how much.

And add playing a game demo (flat out 2)while burning a cd-rom and passing files across a lan, and torrenting all at the same time w/ no hiccups :D

[Stealth]

And add playing a game demo (flat out 2)while burning a cd-rom and passing files across a lan, and torrenting all at the same time w/ no hiccups :D

Oh, if you want that, you'd need at least 2 GB of DDR2 800MHz (the first rate that actually tops DDR 400MHz in speed, mind you...), a decent gigabit LAN card and a SCSI drive set, don't fool yourself that an EIDE or SATA setup would be able to handle that. :p

[agarath]

Oh, if you want that, you'd need at least 2 GB of DDR2 800MHz (the first rate that actually tops DDR 400MHz in speed, mind you...), a decent gigabit LAN card and a SCSI drive set, don't fool yourself that an EIDE or SATA setup would be able to handle that. :p

Oh I meant that was what I was doing earlier that day

[gunslinger]

i used to be an amd guy, but after Intel came out with the core 2 and it smoked amd in every test by 20-40% and was $100 cheaper than the nearest spec amd, i went intel e6600 w/2 gugs of pc6400. never looked back. its by far the fastest system i have ever used. i can listen to music, download 3 torrents, burn a dvd and be doing a virus scan with no slow down.