I was wondering - how much of a speed improvement could I expect from a 1.73 dual core versus 2.0 dual core (both Intel centrino laptops)?
Right now my old laptop is a single 2.1 ghz AMD. For the most part it works fine, but when I edit (and record) music files (I am recording myself), I need to turn off all antivirus/firewall for more processing power. Even then it occasionally lags.
I think a 1.73 dual core should be a big improvement over a 2.1 single - right?
How about a 1.73 dual core versus 2 dual core? Is it worth a few hundred dollars more if I am on a budget?
The dual cores really work best in programs that support the dual core technology...like Photoshop/etc.
Yes there are two physical CPU cores, but the system only can really use one at a time as they are written now. Expect newer high-profile applications to support this technology, but normal appls like browsers/file explorers/games will not support it.....yet (depending on the game)
When buying a CPU, you should probably buy the fastest you can afford.
Dual cores are significantly faster than single cores *of the same architecture and design*. My 32 bit 2.8GHz dual core P4 is much faster than a 32 bit 2.8GHz single core P4, but is still generally slower than a single core 64 bit Athlon 64 3000+ running at 2GHz. (Also note that dual core CPUs run hotter than single core versions and pose a greater demand on the power supply. I have had to replace several leaky capacitors in my dual core P4 because of this.)
BTW, "Core Duos" are dual cores, but not all dual cores are Core Duos. It's easy to get them mixed up. I recommend buying something like a Turion 64 or Core 2 Duo over a plain Core Duo, since they are 64 bit compatible. In programs dealing with 64 bit (or larger) numbers, hardware 64 bit support can often more than double the performance.
__________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
TCPA would take your freedom! Say NO! To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
HDTV the way it should be: To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Originally Posted by A friend of mine who has a Linux kernel named after his girlfriend.
If I was VirtualBox, I could load my virtualization module into Hannah and boot up another kernel in the same address space.
If you say so Star I will trust you but so far even using Photoshop element it is still as slow as previous laptops I tested at work. Ok ok maybe slitly faster
__________________
If you get dead silence after breaking the speed of sound, would you be in the darkness after passing the speed of light?
I love my dual cores, they allow for better multi tasking, I can run a virus scan and not know it, where as before it really drew the system down. I am happy and won't go back until something better comes out. View my pda to see what systems I own.
CPU is just one factor... If you are on a budget, I'd say bump up your memory size and you will see a bigger diff than jumpping from 1.83 to 2.0. Of course, the L2 on CPU also play a big role on performance.
Most of the time, my system is slowed down by the hard disk... Have you seen the new laptop from HP and Toshiba? They have options to install with 2 HDs... I'd really want to see how much that would help... :)
Most of the time, my system is slowed down by the hard disk... Have you seen the new laptop from HP and Toshiba? They have options to install with 2 HDs... I'd really want to see how much that would help... :)
If they are 7200rpm in RAID, they work out pretty well.
I also noticed more improvement when I set the swap file on a seperate hard disk than the main one, and have the size set to 2.5x the amount of RAM I have. That was a big improvement.
There was also a registry setting for ConservativeSwapFileUsage...I dont remember where though as I havent used a PC in about 2 years. LOL
Mac OSX can run natively on dual-core configurations, which means that Macs use the whole processor, not just one core, for any application. The MacBook is currently around $1,050 for the base model. Concerning speed, I have used an old G3 (at least 4 or 5 years old) and it's still faster than my 2.6 GHz P4. It's all in the operating system, which Microsoft still hasn't figured out.
I am going to have to say that AMD's even when slower then Intels still seem more powerful. But I would not upgrade from 1.7 to 2GHZ for hundreds of dollars.
__________________
Freedom means learning to deal with being offended!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Love Sudoku? Try To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. .
I am studying MS VB05 right now, so if you can give me any tips or need some help on something I would be glad to help(or try).
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Whether or not the OS runs faster is irrelevant because the cores aren't what makes it run faster. All of these comparisons of Dual to single core stake a old P4 or a AMD with outdated L2 cahce, slow front side bus and even slower surrounding hardware.
The processors them selves are even slower and the multiple cores doesn't make it faster, it is the surrounding hardware improving. A 3ghz P4 with this kinda surrounding gear would blow a core duo 2 out of the water, but P4 runs on outdated tech, no matter how many cores.....
Follow Us
RSS Feed
Follow on Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
Addicted Member
