Is a dual-core worth it?

[Legion Kreinak]

Okay, we've seen Mr. F's example of what his Pentium D dual-core system can do. 20+ applications open with minimal lag. That's impressive. The thing is though, rationally, most people won't use that many programs. The most I've had open was 4-5, with a few sub-portions of those programs (i.e., AIM messenger windows).

I'm looking at an AMD Athlon Processor as of now. Dual-cores are pretty expensive. Is there any reason I'd need a dual-core? I do average, everyday multitasking (I know most of you have probably read this from me by now, but: AIM, MMJB, Firefox, couple IM windows, Spreadsheets, a few folders) and I plan to start gaming a bit more (i.e., F.E.A.R., AoE III, BF2: Special Forces).

That said, can someone educate me a bit here? I'm not sure if there's a point for me to get dual-core if a single-core seems more than capable of fulfilling my current needs. And no, I doubt I'll ever burn a DVD while playing BF2 or anything like that - I have plenty of free time where I can leave a DVD burning (i.e., work, sleep, going out, training).

 

[TRDCorolla1]

Well technically, a single core can multitask, just not to that extreme as a dual core can (ie, Mr. F's example). Just think of dual core as an advanced version of regular single core processors. You pay what you get. Pay a little more and you get a dual core CPU that multitask way better than a single core CPU which results in faster and more efficient usage of CPU. Dual core CPU can do anything a single core CPU can do, but better. It's up to you what you want. I'm using a regular CPU and quite often my CPU spikes through the roof doing something. Slows everything else down from time to time. I multitask quite often. Right now, I've got Roxio burning my DVD while I have 8 windows open at one time including this one. I've got another active program running (Limewire) in the background also and my CPU's hitting anywhere from 60-100% at the moment. Everything is still running for the most part, but if I were to open another window using IE now, there will be like a 5-10 seconds delay for it to open up because of all this stuff running. So yeah, I cherish dual core now.

 

[Gamingfreak]

itd be nice to have a dual core cpu is it worth it? no not really the athlons are still a very good cpu in my opinion, but ude be better off looking at the amd 64 cpus since windows vista is coming out soon

 

[HRHunteRHR]

Requin... you ask ALOT of questions. Not a bad thing, but it gets repetitive. Why don't you just look them up yourself???


Anyways, if you multitask, get the dual core.

If you want to be prepared for the future, get dual core.

If you game, do not get dual core.

If you're on a budget, do not get dual core.

If you don't care, do not get dual core.

If you don't know, look it up on google.

 

[TRDCorolla1]

Lol, that was simple...

 

[BigLu]

HRHunteRHR, THIS IS A FORUM ABOUT COMPUTERS!!! THE POINT IS TO GET INFO THAT YOU NEED TO KNOW FROM KNOWLEDGABLE PEOPLE! So let him as a question. Dual Cores aren't yet taken advantage of in gaming. They do make an impressive improvement on multitasking, although I've seen athlon 64 single cores so tons of things at once without skipping a beat like TDRCorolla said. If you've got the dough, go for the dual core.

 

[HRHunteRHR]

HRHunteRHR, THIS IS A FORUM ABOUT COMPUTERS!!! THE POINT IS TO GET INFO THAT YOU NEED TO KNOW FROM KNOWLEDGABLE PEOPLE! So let him as a question. Dual Cores aren't yet taken advantage of in gaming. They do make an impressive improvement on multitasking, although I've seen athlon 64 single cores so tons of things at once without skipping a beat like TDRCorolla said. If you've got the dough, go for the dual core.

Yea I kinda just answered his question.....



It's not the fact that he is asking questions about computers, it's just like it seems like he's using us or something. I mean I doubt he is, but it just seems like that. It's like first it was "Oh yea should I return this comp?" which seems fine. Then it's "should I buy an XPS?" followed by a big tyrade and arguments, then it's "Should I overclock?", THEN it's "Can someone take a bunch of screenshots for me??" , THEEENNNNNNN it's this!! I mean damn you'd think you would actually look online for answers using google or something rather than asking a whole bunch of questions here.

 

[Legion Kreinak]

Well, I looked for the screenshots online but I couldn't find anything I was looking for. Sure, there are many shots of the games, but I wanted identical images, one on MAX or high settings, another on medium, so I could see the real difference.

Another question I'll ask here, rather than making a new thread - what's the difference between Windows XP Home & Media Center Edition, aside from the cost?

 

[HRHunteRHR]

Lets see here, what could be the difference?

Windows MEDIA CENTER
Windows XP/Pro

Well, judging by the fact that computer technology changes every day, and XP/PRO are over 4 years old now, you'd think that if it's called media center edition, they'd put things for media they didn't have in the old one.

My reccomendations. Just go with XP Home. Pro is just even more bull shit that you don't need.

 

[Legion Kreinak]

That's what I figured. Just money I don't need to waste. I figured media center edition came with media-related software, I just didn't know what kind.