Depends upon what you are doing. If you encode or do compression then those number won't even begin to explain the difference. If you use it for surfing the web and stuff you won't notice much of a difference. I'm a gamer and the biggest thing that I've noticed from XP 2800+ to my new E6600 is that the CPU is no longer a bottleneck for games and that the dual core helps out a ton. If you've never used dual core (and it seems to be you haven't) then that will be the biggest jump you will notice.
Dual Screen:
Maya (animation) which is usually more intensive on the cpu than gfx card
CS : Source / FEAR / HL2
Photoshop
Premiere (encoding/compression)
surfing the net
Well, first punch yourself in the face, and use that as the baseline for your Athlon XP. Then get a hammer and smack yourself in the face with it. That would be the Core 2.
*please note, Tekdemon is not responsible for any brain damage that can/may/will occur if you attempt this. However, anyone stupid enough to actually attempt this most likely deserves to be weaned from the gene pool so...have fun.
Going from an XP 2600 to an E6400 will be 3-4 times as fast, while running apps that aren't SMP-enabled (not dual-core or processor-enabled), and will be nearly twice as fast again, while running SMP-enabled applications. You'll drool for the first few weeks, I promise.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.