I've got around $315 tax refund coming at the end of this month, and I'm buying a new processor. I'm leaning towards an Opteron, but should I spring for a dual-core, or not?
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-02 3:21
I don't think they're really worth it at this point in time. A lot of programs don't really fully support the things they can do....I have a friend that bought one and he said he hasn't noticed much of a difference from his old 64 bit processor.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-02 3:24
Are you gonna use the extra power for anything, or is this just rice?
I'd get the fastest Athlon 64, or an Opteron if I really wanted to overdo it
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-02 16:47
An Athlon X2 4400+ is fine too.
Name:
les aptt2006-03-03 4:39
Some friendly thoughts
As a Mac user with some experience with single/dual core/proc issues poster #2 is right. I'm assuming your OS of choice supports it so you'll likely see improvement there (Boot times etc).
If the apps you use most do not support it then IMO the main reason to go dual becomes "future-proofing" a system you plan on keeping for a while.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-03 5:49
>>7
Lies, Mac users don't have friendly thoughts, they have bitter, angry thoughts about how stupid everyone else is for not using a Mac; especially those companies that make those nice games.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-03 6:12
which games are multithreaded already?
oh, yeah.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-03 10:39
I'm not OP, but I was wondering wether dual-core will improve performances for watching movies and gaming/[insert CPU-intensive activity here] on different screens?
Is it even worth getting dual core for just this purpose?
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-03 11:46
Watching movies
No
Gaming
Very few games, usually little advantage
CPU-intensive activity
No
different screens
No
You want dual cores for servers.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-03 13:35
||different screens
|No
That's not entirely true. If you're running different applications on those screens, you'd likely see some performance gain.
But like >>11 said, dual core is mostly for servers and hardcore CAD/$3DContentProducingProgram users.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-03 19:18
Other then heavy multitasking you won't notice much more of a performance improvement.
After Vista's release you will start seeing the full advantage of dual core.
Right now it depends on what you are using your computer for.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-03 19:25
After Vista's release you will start seeing the full advantage of dual core.
An overwhelming majority of computers are using single core processors.
It would only make sense that software written today is optimized for single core processors.
Starting with Vista they're optimizing for more efficient technology.
Multi-core architecture is the future, but single core processors will still be around for a few more years.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-03 20:32
>>15
Because you're talking out your ass, that's why. You have absolutely no fucking clue.
a) I guess those multi-core boxen running NT4 in 1996 were my imagination?
b) It's also funny because of Vista's requirements.
c) You've obviously never programmed an application in your life. Windows apps already use piles of theads.
d) Guess what VM means? Virtual Machine! Guess what context switching is for? Switching between virtual processors and memory space.
OP here. Primarily, my comp is used for surfing the web and playing games, and I'm not gonna get Vista until I HAVE to. If the prices drop by the time I get my money, I'll probably get the best dual-core Athlon I can afford; if not, I'll just get a 3700+
or Opteron 148 and OC it a little.
Not, it just means that >>15 was full of shit, that's all. Dual cores are still nice to have, and you don't need Vista to use them.
The OP is probably better off not buying the best they can get though; it's a waste of cash. Buy something one or two generations behind. It's only a little slower, but a lot cheaper. Anything you buy will be mediocre in a couple years anyway.