|
I will either be getting a new Dell(dont laugh) or building a new computer in mid-may. I'm only 16, so i dont know if my mother would trust me with $1,000 worth of sensitive computer parts. I was wondering if a dual-core is worth the extra money NOT considering multi-tasking.
Follow me here...Lets say I was running 2 apps, unzipping a big video file, and running a virus scan. Having dual-core will not help me do either faster if I were doing them one by run right, but the DC would help me run both with absolutely no hang-up right. So a 3GHz DC would not actually be running one process at 6GHz, but 2 completely different processes at 3GHz for a total of 6 GHz.
I asked in a different post and someone said a 2.8GHzDC is better than a 3.2GHzHT, but what if I was only doing one thing, not multi-tasking, the 3.2GHzHT would finish before the 2.8GHzDC, right? If this is true, I will probably get the faster 3.2GHzHT instead of the 2.8GHzDC. The reason I ask is because I want whatever will run a game better which i wont be runing any other applications along with so it seems it is the 3.2GHzHT.
But now, CONSIDERING multi-tasking, isnt it true that the DC can do 2x as much and the HT about 1.5x as much? Sorry if there has been a post on this already, but could somebody corect me where I am wrong or what I should buy to do gaming the best. Should i buy a slower processor, maybe 2.8GHzHT and worry more about my graphics card?
Here is the basic specs of what i want, im lookin for it to cost about $1000, not a cent more hopefully:
intel 3.2GHz hyper-threading
1GB RAM
256MB Nvidia video card
keyboard and mouse
2.1 speakers
17" LCD flatscreen monitor
|
