The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
A Tale of Two Processors
CrazyMex
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
I've finally decided to upgrade my computer and go with an intel chipset this time around as AMD seems to enjoy changing their standard socket every year or so. After checking through different websites like Tom's Hardware and so on I still can't decide what to go with. Which processor provides the most performance per price? I'm looking to spend around $150 at most (which limits me to a dual core, right?) for the cpu.
Which dual core is the right one for me - the Dual-Core or the Core 2 Dual? And why is the E4500 Allendale cheaper than the E4400 - link
Any advice would be appreciated.
Which dual core is the right one for me - the Dual-Core or the Core 2 Dual? And why is the E4500 Allendale cheaper than the E4400 - link
Any advice would be appreciated.
CrazyMex on
0
Posts
If you're looking for the best bang for the buck, it's hard to go wrong with the E6550 right now.
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
Think of the Pentium Dual core as the Dual Core celeron. It's good for general tasks, and it's dual core on teh cheap, but it is by no means a powerful processor.
You want "core 2 duo" because it can run a 64 bit OS, the "core duo" is a 32 bit processor and cannot run a 64 bit OS. Intel "Dual-core" label seems to be a branding initiative by Intel to designate 32 bit dual core processors, but not all computer parts retailers follow this naming convention. See link
So for the sake of future-proofing, get a core 2 duo, or an AMD processor capable of running a 64 bit OS.
And I don't get why the E4500 is cheaper than the E4400, as the E4500 is clocked higher and also has virtualization support. Maybe some strange supply artifact?
If you can wait, do so, and pick up a core 2 quad when prices come down. I'd think that ought to be a significant performance boost for multi-tasking over the core 2 duo.
Idunno, it kinda depends on how much multitasking the OP does, and/or how many apps the OP runs that can take advantage of more than two cores. If you're someone who juggles between Photoshop, Illustrator, Premiere, or an equivalent collection of apps, then a quad core may make sense. For most people on this forum though (i.e. gamers), I don't think quad core will gain them much. Games are built for what the majority of the market is projected to have at the time of release. For current and near-horizon titles, that's almost exclusively single- and dual-core CPUs. I think a lot of PC game developers are planning to take advantage of dual core, but I doubt many are going to parallelize their code enough to take full advantage of quad cores. Splitting your app into extra threads so cores 3 and 4 aren't sitting idle means you can introduce a whole range of fun bugs, all for a change that will only benefit maybe 1 in 20 gamers, if that. Going from two threads to four is probably not as big a change as going from one to two, but it's still significant extra overhead with a very small net payoff.