Originally posted by: DarkManX
would gettin a dual core make much of a difference for day to day computer use? im not really a gamer, but I still like havin the best performance.
That depends on what you consider "much." If you aren't hyper -you've slacked off on the Jolt Cola and you've come down from your last cup of java- then the difference between a 2300 MHz (OCed) Athlon 64 and a 550 MHz K6-2 is hardly noticeable after you've aclimated for a few hours. It does takes some time. I have had both going right here side by side. It is suprising how easily you can adapt to a "slow" computer. Remember, most Apple computer users think their computers are quick
🙂
OTOH, I just switched from the Athlon 64 because of that Opteron 165 deal, mostly just because it looks like the last good deal I will ever be able to get as the socket 939 fades into oblivion; and it is quite a shock how fast windows and dialogs pop up and tasks finish. That's a dual OCed to 2750MHz in comparison to a single at 2330 MHz (OCed). The reason, after all, the duals have such a high performance number in comparision to identically clocked singles is the performance on general benchmarks, not gaming and Drystones. Thats where the CPU manufacturers make their large sales, not to enthusaists. Windows always has many threads going (for its own functions, not necessarily your apps.) Dual CPUs have a dramatic effect on the OS. I was surprised.
Is this a big deal? Not really. I doubt if you are going to save much time. But it is kind of fun to drive your own Jaguar or Corvette, in computer terms, while only spending $160, instead of -what- $50,000.
On stock volts, this Opteron 165 does 2750MHz with an instance of prime95 on each CPU. It will do 2950MHs bumped to 1.49 volts, but one of the versions of prime95 will crap out after 4 to 10 hours, so 2750 is alright with me (305 HT). Actually I've had a lot of quirkey issues with this overclock, but for reasons unknown they have all disappeared.
