|
Dual Core Processors
|
|
Member
|
6. November 2006 @ 19:36 |
Link to this message
|
|
I still dont understand this D core CPU, I know I know I am dumb but can I get a little education about them, if someone have the time, can you please put a list from - to +. I am trying to build a new system and need some help with the D core, Thanks.
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
|
razehsani
Newbie
|
9. November 2006 @ 13:29 |
Link to this message
|
|
Go on ebay and grab urself a pentium X6800...grab a motherboard with a chipset around the 940+ range eg...945...or 975x...and make sure the MB supports ddr2 at 800mhz...The asus boards will get the job done...Buy two pieces of identical ddr2 ram and install them in dual mode...then comes sata...and a nice case with good cooling cause the x6800 can be easily overclocked...then the video..try to take advantage of crossfire...and u got the best system at under $2000...cheers
|
|
s3a
Suspended permanently
|
10. November 2006 @ 12:20 |
Link to this message
|
|
I will try to make this simple:
Pentium D is bassicaly two pentium 4 cpu's in one. A core is a type of "chip" inside the chip and a pentium 4 cpu has one of those "chips" while dual-core has two of them.
Dual-core (Pentium D) and Single core (Pentium 4) are both equally fast if they are rated at the same clock speed (Ghz, etc). The only difference is that the dual-core version (Pentium D) is capable of handling more things at once (stil at the same speed).
In other words:
if you are running one program, either CPU will work equally well, but, dual-core allows you to do several things at once without slowdowns.
P.S.
I recommend you go with AMD...they are cheaper and better. The only intel CPU's that are better is the core (2) duo's. I don't think you need that much power. I would recommend the AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+. That is not only a very powerful CPU but it is also a very good deal (price wise)!
P.S. #2
That CPU acts as a dual-core 3.2 Ghz, but it is really rated at 2.0 Ghz. In other words, it's better since it uses, less power, makes less heat and it performs equally well [if compared to a 3.2 Ghz Intel CPU].
If I insult you...don't get offended...my insults are "friendly insults"...I know this sounds stupid (ridiculous) but I am fet up of writing, "no offense" in my posts...
My Comp: (will add specs later)
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 10. November 2006 @ 12:27
|
|
integraol
Junior Member
|
10. November 2006 @ 15:50 |
Link to this message
|
|
Ok, now i've got a couple of questions about them too...
1. Lets take the Intel Core2 Duo E6700, says the clock speed is 2.66 GHz... so is that 2.66 GHz ea. core making it "5.32 GHz"?
2. From looking at Intel's and AMD's website, these 2 processors seem to look like the top-of-the-line that is out right now.. correct?
AMD Athlon? 64 FX
Intel® Core?2 Extreme processor
|
Member
|
10. November 2006 @ 16:32 |
Link to this message
|
|
No it will not be the same as running a 5.32 ghz machine. It just means that It will act like two seperate cpu's while multi-tasking. This will enable you to use two burners at the same time or print while burning. This will show a great improvement in your system speed but its not the same as having one mega processor.
|
|
integraol
Junior Member
|
10. November 2006 @ 16:50 |
Link to this message
|
|
1. ok, so it's like having two 2.66 GHz processors (2.66 for one program, 2.66 used for another)... or two 1.33GHz processors (that add together to become 2.66 GHz when 1 program is used, then split for multiple programs)?
2. So in theory, if your only running 1 process (a single program) and nothing else... then an AMD with the highest GHz would be the best... but for multiple applications running, the 2Core (even though they are less GHz, will run everything better)?
Thanks for the help!
|
|
rulisky
Senior Member
|
11. November 2006 @ 03:10 |
Link to this message
|
|
Been following this thread. Considering a new Dual Core machine for gaming. Brings a question to mind.
For example, Splinter Cell Double Agent (just released) requires a 3.0 GHz processor and recommends a 3.5 GHz machine. So, will running two 2.66 GHz processors meet the requirements for this game or not??
Don't want to make a bad purchase decision!
|
Member
|
11. November 2006 @ 05:58 |
Link to this message
|
|
yes integraol from what Ive read youve got the concept right.
|
|
s3a
Suspended permanently
|
11. November 2006 @ 14:42 |
Link to this message
|
|
@ rulisky: I strongly recommend you go with the AMD Athlon 64 3800+ X2. If you really want to get the Intel 805 (Dual-core 2.66 Ghz CPU)...then, no, it will not work with Splinter Cell [unless you overclock the CPU].
Overclocking (OCing) means that you are making the CPU run faster than its speed set by the factory. This is a good thing if you know how to deal with it. What I mean by this is that: you will need some cooling solutions in order to do this effectively without frying your cpu.
Not only does it make more heat but it also spends A LOT of electricity. If you OC it to 3.0 Ghz then, it should run that Splinter Cell game of yours.
Bottom Line: the 2.66 Ghz CPU IS a bad decision. CHOOSE THE AMD Athlon 64 3800+ X2 [which is technically 2.0 Ghz but acts as 3.2].
If you can afford the slight increase of money, go for the AMD Athlon 64 4200+ X2 (runs at, I think, 2.2 Ghz), it acts as a 3.5 Ghz dual-core CPU.
P.S.
Believe it or not...I am traumatized by the fact that a PC game now has a 3.0 Ghz as its MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS!
_____________________________________________________________________
Quote:"No it will not be the same as running a 5.32 ghz machine. It just means that It will act like two seperate cpu's while multi-tasking. This will enable you to use two burners at the same time or print while burning. This will show a great improvement in your system speed but its not the same as having one mega processor."
______
For now, it isn't. However, Valve has confirmed [for quad core CPU's] that, their games will occupy each core meaning that in the end, it'll be like one mega CPU (for games).
If I insult you...don't get offended...my insults are "friendly insults"...I know this sounds stupid (ridiculous) but I am fet up of writing, "no offense" in my posts...
My Comp: (will add specs later)
|
|
rulisky
Senior Member
|
11. November 2006 @ 15:42 |
Link to this message
|
|
@s3a. Thanks for the input. Yes, the min requirements on SC:DA are staggering. I have checked their web site and physically read the box at best buy. Even my GF6200 video card w/256 Mb is NOT on their list of supported cards; it takes at least a GF6600 on the nVidia side.
|
|
s3a
Suspended permanently
|
11. November 2006 @ 16:35 |
Link to this message
|
|
4200+ is not necessary for Double Agent!
3800+ is enough since its second core takes care of other apps (such as WinXP)
Hope that saves ppl some money!
If I insult you...don't get offended...my insults are "friendly insults"...I know this sounds stupid (ridiculous) but I am fet up of writing, "no offense" in my posts...
My Comp: (will add specs later)
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 11. November 2006 @ 17:02
|
|
rulisky
Senior Member
|
12. November 2006 @ 14:23 |
Link to this message
|
|
I have been trying to look online for Intel and AMD speed comparisons. Nothing really makes sense to me or compares the two in plain English terms for the techno impaired. Most comparisons that I have found seem to compare apples to oranges. They don't really address my concerns; or if they do, I missed the point. Single core/dual core. One video card/two (or more cards), etc. Makes my head spin.
Have concluded that upgrading my current machine is cost ineffective. Prices for new set ups run reasonably from $1500 to $2000; then go ballistic. But I really don't know how to choose. The terms I am used to reading have changed!
Is there a site to compare AMD to Intel in simple terms? Like what IS a 5200+ ? I am used to speaking Intel. AMD confuses me.
My current system is a Pentium 4, 3.0 GHz, 1 Gig Ram, GF6200 256Mb video card (AGP). The AGP config is dated and limits my choices. I feel the need to update and prepare for the future with care.
Thanks.
|
|
s3a
Suspended permanently
|
12. November 2006 @ 14:45 |
Link to this message
|
|
For now forget about Intel's core (2) duo's and amd's dual-core CPU's.
3000+ (AMD)=3.0 Ghz (Intel)
3200+ (AMD)=3.2 Ghz (Intel)
2500+ (AMD)=2.5 Ghz (Intel)
Do you understand that?
That "rule" applies to all SINGLE-CORE AMD CPU's compared to all Intel CPU's [except the core (2) duo's].
Tell me if you have understood the above. If you have, then, I can continue teaching you.
If I insult you...don't get offended...my insults are "friendly insults"...I know this sounds stupid (ridiculous) but I am fet up of writing, "no offense" in my posts...
My Comp: (will add specs later)
|
Senior Member
|
12. November 2006 @ 15:39 |
Link to this message
|
real world comparisons here.
its getting real hard to compare cpus now as ghz isnt the bench mark now, unless they are the same cpu family, cpus with better procssing efficentcy are top now. like how a real world 2.0ghz amd(3400 on the box) can do the same as a pentium 3.4ghz.
now with multi threaded apps(and games) a dual core cpu with 2, 1.33ghz cores will act more like a 2.66ghz core as the data is sent to both cores and is processed at the same time. but, and its a big but, not all games and apps are cappable of multithreading. more have patches and updates that make it possible every day.
i think give it another 12 months(18 possibly) and some games will be out that need dual cores to run.
|
|
rulisky
Senior Member
|
13. November 2006 @ 08:36 |
Link to this message
|
|
@s3a. So far, so good. The single core numbers seem to relate well to what I have grown used to re Intel terms. However, the market seems to have dropped the "speed" race as such and has switched to dual stuff.
My current system has not been surpassed that much in speed. I have seen 3.7GHz systems, but that is not the same magnitude leap from my old 450MHz to my current 3.0GHz. However, my AGP slot video card IS cramping my style. That's why I'm looking ahead right now.
Please continue.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
13. November 2006 @ 11:40 |
Link to this message
|
|
That's exactly what happened. Intel couldn't build a viable chip above 4 GHz and AMD realized long before then that a chip that does more instructions per cycle is faster than raw GHz. We're basically at the practical speed limit with conventional technologies and manufacturing processes. That could change, but it seems multi-core and SMP is the wave of the future. Unfortunately, very few applications really take advantage of multi-processing CPUs and systems.
-Do you believe you own your computer and shouldn't be told what you can run and do? Then say *NO* to Microsoft Vista!
-Since half the questions here involve media problems, here ya go: Only use Verbatim or Taiyo-Yuden discs (get your TYs from Rima.com, not Supermediastore or meritline). Forget the rest, no matter what "brand" they sell under. Always burn at 4x speed regardless of the speed rating of this discs or your drive. If you have burn problems with these then you have to update your drive's firmware. For double-layer discs, only use Verbatim DVD+R DL and burn them at 2.4x speed.
|
