Single versus dual core CPUS

Member

22. December 2006 @ 11:25

Link to this message

Which is better? Im building a pc , just asking for your opinions.

No one can give you wiser advise than yourself.
-Cicero

elokito

Senior Member

22. December 2006 @ 11:41

Link to this message

2 is better than 1

[

gumbowie

Member

14. January 2007 @ 14:48

Link to this message

i running core 2 it rusn sweet no probs on vista

Intel Core 2 E6300 1.8ghz = 2.79ghz
Gigabyte Motherboard GA-945GM-S2
Display Card NVIDIA Geforce 7600gt 7 series
Memory 2 gig DDR2
Operating System Microsoft Windows XP and vista Rc1
Hardrive 120 Gig sata 7500RPM x2 Xp Home
80 Gig sata2 7500rpm 8 Meg cache vista
Sound Card Realtek HD Audio rear output
Dvb T300 Tv card tuner With media center edition

Member

13. April 2007 @ 19:20

Link to this message

I got my self a dual-core but when im playing elder scrolls 4 peformance
looks better with normal single cor x86 CPUS.

No one can give you wiser advise than yourself.
-Cicero

Zeyf414

Member

13. April 2007 @ 19:45

Link to this message

With very few exceptions, today's PC games do not utilize dual cores. But inthe future you can bet games will start moving that way.

Senior Member

1 product review

13. April 2007 @ 19:49

Link to this message

Core 2 is unmatchable in gaming it will run any cpu over dual single or quad core.
But some older dual core CPU's tend to struggle more in games that are single threaded and need 3.0ghz in one core to run smooth Ive seen one AMD Dual Core I cant remember the exact model i think it was one of the slower models of the Athalon 64 x2 about 1.8ghz and I instaled flight simulator X on it when i ran it yeah it ran at a playable state but i was only getting about 20fps with a Radeon X1650 in that PC and i went to task manager and one core is about blo0w up running at 99% maybe even 100% but i wont show while Core 2 is laying around on idle doing 1% and nothing to be done about it the CPU had gone to waste in this game as it was only letting 50% of the full potential used.
MY recomendation if you are buying a dual core buy a very fast one top of the line ones dont go cheap because oh this is 1.8ghz 1.8ghz +1.8ghz = 3.6ghz yea it does in dual core applications in single core apps it means 1.8ghz.
any core 2 will do the slower E4300 will run very fast and will get you thourgh any game its just the way those core 2's run that it lets you run anything with 2ghz per core, if buying an X2 go for a model closer to the top they are good too just a high end one.

Quote:
playing elder scrolls 4 peformance

Well this game I have been told many times it looks great its the best looking game to me that is bs! it looks good but nothing near the best games ive seen that game to me is also very boring i cant stand the language "Thy" to me its liek playing Tetris for 11 days staright.
I never got past thr part how you have to escape the dungeon cell.

Spenman91

Senior Member

13. April 2007 @ 21:08

Link to this message

If you wanted to go with AMD right now would be a good time since they just had a huge price drop. But the Core 2 Duo is a better processor in my opinion.

Member

14. April 2007 @ 07:46

Link to this message

I do not know for sure but i think core 2 duo still can not
execute X64 instruction set am i right?

No one can give you wiser advise than yourself.
-Cicero

elokito

Senior Member

14. April 2007 @ 07:47

Link to this message

of course it can

[

Member

14. April 2007 @ 07:53

Link to this message

wow, looks like intel it truly fooloing AMD's trail, by 2009 i
guess x86 applications will be extinct. Yet i still like AMD
better Intel lacks hyper-transport but AMD is a exception.

regards

No one can give you wiser advise than yourself.
-Cicero

Senior Member

1 product review

14. April 2007 @ 20:34

Link to this message

But you dont get that intel has its own stuff.
the Core 2 Duo is fatser then any AMD CPU and that is what matters it does more then any amd too so no arguing amd is down right now.
Its about time they were putting Intel down since 01.
But intel Still managed to hold sales etc and made the pentium 4 the most Popular CPU made.

Mort81

AfterDawn Addict

6 product reviews

15. April 2007 @ 07:40

Link to this message

clock per clock C2D walks all over all AMD offerings.

Rig #1 Asus Rampage Formula Mobo, Intel Core2Quad Q9450 CPU @ 3.55ghz, 2gb Corsair DDR2 1066 Dominator Ram @ 5-5-5-15, TR Ultra 120 Extreme w/ Scythe 9 blade 110 cfm 120mm Fan HSF, HIS Radeon 512mb HD3850 IceQ TurboX GPU, Corsair 620HX P/S, CM Stacker 830 Evo Case, Rig #2 Asus P5W DH Deluxe Mobo, Intel C2D E6600 CPU @ 3.6ghz, 2gb Corsair XMS2 DDR2 800 Ram @ 4-4-4-12-2t, Zalman CNPS9500LED HSF, Sapphire Radeon X850XT PE GPU, Corsair 620HX P/S, Cooler Master Mystique Case, Viewsonic 20.1" Widescreen Digital LCD Monitor, Klipsch Promedia Ultra 5.1 THX Desktop Speakers, http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=348351 http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=236435

Member

20. April 2007 @ 13:38

Link to this message

yes but AMD also has Hyper-Transport which improves bus speed
greatly.

No one can give you wiser advise than yourself.
-Cicero

xXxBG

Member

20. April 2007 @ 13:50

Link to this message

Dual Core For Sure, i have a AMD Athlon X2 5000 and its fast!

Member

20. April 2007 @ 13:52

Link to this message

INTEL VERSUS AMD

Intel

pros:

-Reliable

-Good warrenty

-Very good cache (L2)

Cons:

-Overpriced

-Pentium dual-core can't execute x64 instructions set.

-Intel changes it's sockets just to fast. (Remember good ol' socket
423 for P4 that was replaced by 478 in less than a year?)

-Lack of enhanced FSB

AMD

Pros:

-Cheap

-Affordable and reliable.(Especially entry AMD x2)

-Enhanced FSB.

Cons:

-Slow clockspeed

-Lacke of L2 Cache

-Terrible cooling with old models

-ugly packages

No one can give you wiser advise than yourself.
-Cicero

Mort81

AfterDawn Addict

6 product reviews

20. April 2007 @ 13:52

Link to this message

I have nothing against AMD I'm merely statng the facts. C2D's archetecture and technology are superior to anything AMD has to offer right now. A stock E6600 2.4ghz C2D cpu will outperform even an AMD X2 6000+ 3.0ghz cpu.

semid13

Member

20. April 2007 @ 14:07

Link to this message

I don't know about AMD but 2 is better than 1 - dual core or Core 2. CPU alone is not everything. You still need dual channel RAM at least 2Gb, dual PCIe videocards preferably Crossfire & a couple of fast HDD. Last but not least - a powerful PSU to feed all of your power hungry hardware. Don't forget the CPU cooler.

elokito

Senior Member

20. April 2007 @ 14:12

Link to this message

Pentium dual-core can't execute x64 instructions set.

u sure about that? i have a pentium d (pentium dual core) and im running vista ultimate x64

[

Mort81

AfterDawn Addict

6 product reviews

20. April 2007 @ 14:13

Link to this message

Quote:
-Very good cache (L2)

4M L2 cache on C2D's E6600 and up. soon to release 1333 fsb C2D chips with 6M L2 cache. Quad cores are 2 x 4M L2 cache now. soon to release 1333 fsb chips with 2 x 6M L2 cache.

Quote:
-Intel changes it's sockets just to fast. (Remember good ol' socket
423 for P4 that was replaced by 478 in less than a year?)

775 has been the std socket for some time now.

the C2D's run very cool as oppossed to AMD or Intel P4's or D series.

Quote:
-Pentium dual-core can't execute x64 instructions set

C2D's can.

C2D's very OC friendly. try to OC an AMD 1200mhz like I have my E6600 OC'ed. you can't.

Senior Member

1 product review

20. April 2007 @ 17:54

Link to this message

Pentium Dual Core Can execute x64 its a 64bit dual core cpu what are you talking about.
And the Core 2 is cheaper then some of the Amd's which are slower

Quote:
-Intel changes it's sockets just to fast. (Remember good ol' socket
423 for P4 that was replaced by 478 in less than a year?)

Why is that a problem i mean you arent going to go out and buy a new cpu every time they improve by 100mhz the 423 sucked thats why it got kicked of only idiots bought it in the first place because those first socket 423 P4's "Willamette" 1.3ghz-1.8ghz got beaten in benchmarks all of the series by the Tulatin Pentium 3's running at 1.4ghz even though they were older so thats why intel got rid of socket 423 and made 478 which started in 02 at 2.0ghz the "Northwood" Chip one of the best P4's and by the end of 02 they Had P4's running at 3.06ghz with HT and they were clearly the fastest then so thats why intel did so they replaced a shabby chip with an amazing one.

Quote:
-Cheap

-Affordable and reliable.(Especially entry AMD x2)

How can it be Cheap and affordable arent they one thing?

And did you know that the old Pentium III Moved on to become the Intel Pentium M and the Pentium M became the Intel Core Duo and that became the Core 2 Duo & Extreme funny how an old chip evolved to become the greatest again.

This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 20. April 2007 @ 17:56

marsey99

Senior Member

21. April 2007 @ 13:43

Link to this message

Originally posted by Leningrad:
INTEL VERSUS AMD

Intel

pros:

-Reliable

-Good warrenty

-Very good cache (L2)

Cons:

-Overpriced

-Pentium dual-core can't execute x64 instructions set.

-Intel changes it's sockets just to fast. (Remember good ol' socket
423 for P4 that was replaced by 478 in less than a year?)

-Lack of enhanced FSB

AMD

Pros:

-Cheap

-Affordable and reliable.(Especially entry AMD x2)

-Enhanced FSB.

Cons:

-Slow clockspeed

-Lacke of L2 Cache

-Terrible cooling with old models

-ugly packages

these were the case 2 or 3 years ago but alot has changed since.

the only real pros of amd right now are the onboard memory controller and the fact that even the top spec mobos are cheap. nothing else, in a cpu versus cpu/bang per buck fight the core2duos win every time.

intels are cooler running, use less power and does more per cycle.

the tables have turned since 2003

edited for speeling :)

This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 22. April 2007 @ 08:05

semid13

Member

21. April 2007 @ 13:53

Link to this message

Actually the 423 socket CPU is not that bad since this was the first generation of P4. I setup a PC using this 423 CPU with an Intel 815 Chipset using PC800 RDRAM way back in 2002. This system is still running & I changed the MB & the videocard twice. Last longer than some systems using 478 CPU.

Senior Member

1 product review

22. April 2007 @ 04:43

Link to this message

Quote:
Actually the 423 socket CPU is not that bad since this was the first generation of P4. I setup a PC using this 423 CPU with an Intel 815 Chipset using PC800 RDRAM way back in 2002. This system is still running & I changed the MB & the videocard twice. Last longer than some systems using 478 CPU.

Well considering in 2002 they had 3ghz P4's with HT no its not that good.
The RDRAM was fast but expesive like hell and still is and considering once again the had DDR ram late 01 and by 02 they had fast DDR 1 ram.
So it lacked there as well.
Another Pointer the i815 Chipset isnt a pentium 4 Chipset instead its one of the Newest Avalible Pentium 3 Chipsets dont belive me i have one running an Intel D815EFV Mainboard which runs a P3 Coppermine with 512mb SD RAM.
I think you mean the Intel I845 Chipset which was releasd in very early 01 and Ran the 1.3ghz to 2ghz 423 socekts.
They were alright but they could have done much better come on if they thought it was so amazing they wouldnt have released a brand new chip within only 12months, completely re-made with a new bus HT technology.

semid13

Member

23. April 2007 @ 11:51

Link to this message

Yeah it's not 815 chipset. It's an Intel 850GB chipset & built in late 2001. I do not have any choice at that time because DDR RAM has not appear yet & RDRAM was so promising yet so expensive & my customer wants the latest system. In fact the first batch of 815 chipset system were so screwed-up. It was supposed to work with PC2100 266 RAM but couldn't & have to use SDR 133 RAM instead. It's very surprising that this 423 CPU system can last so long. Much longer than some 845 chipset system that I built for other customers.