Pardon my ignorance...

Dimkaumd

Senior member
Dec 1, 2003
335
0
0
I havnt kept up with CPU innovations for a couple of years. I have an AMD 3500 single core cpu that seems to work fine.

So I have this basic question. Do multiple cores really make a noticeable difference?
I see that some computers are coming out with quad cores and theres talk of 6-8 cores next year.

Is it worth to get one of these? What would be faster, a quad at 2.33 or a 2core at 3gh?

I appreciate the feedback.
thanks
 

yh125d

Diamond Member
Dec 23, 2006
6,907
0
76
It is most definitely worth it to go dual core. Whether quad core is worth it, or whether a quad at 2.33 is better than a dual at 3.o, is entirely dependent on how you use your computer
 

dbcooper1

Senior member
May 22, 2008
594
0
76
Depends on what you're doing and if your applications make use of the multiple cores. Most don't but that's changing. Even without the support, the other cores are used to take care of background tasks so your system will feel smoother if not faster. Unless you're encoding video on a regular basis, you're generally going to be better off with a higher clocked dual than a lower clocked quad. These are just generalities; I'm sure others will chime in.
 

octopus41092

Golden Member
Feb 23, 2008
1,841
0
76
Yes a dual core provides much much better performance in pretty much everything. Quad cores like the others have said are questionable as it depends on what applications you're running. As for a quad at 2.33 or a dual at 3ghz it all really depends on which cpu you're deciding between. If you can give an estimate as to how much you're willing to spend and what you mainly use your computer for we could recommend a CPU for you.
 

Martimus

Diamond Member
Apr 24, 2007
4,488
153
106
I haven't noticed much difference switching from a 3500+ to an X2 4200+, except I don't get a noticeable slowdown when a background process (like an AV scan) kicks in. Both processors are nearly identical, except the X2 4200+ has two cores.
 

sgrinavi

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2007
4,537
0
76
Originally posted by: Dimkaumd
I havnt kept up with CPU innovations for a couple of years. I have an AMD 3500 single core cpu that seems to work fine.

Even a mid range dual or quad core is going to be significanlty more powerful than your current system - no doubt.

You just said what you have works fine, do you need an upgrade? What do you do with your system? Surfing the web and using a few office apps is not going to be profoundly different after you spend $500 on an upgrade.. ya know?

 

Duvie

Elite Member
Feb 5, 2001
16,215
0
71
Dual is worth it....

I upgraded my wifes computer with an X2 3800+ from a 3000+ venice...same speed....noticeable different in the feel of it with multitasking....She hates when I am doing things on the pC and just running a webpage through firefox is degraded...Now she doesn't know if I am runing shit in the background....

Quad vs dual? You need to give us a bunch more info about your intended uses for us to say one way or another...
 

cusideabelincoln

Diamond Member
Aug 3, 2008
3,269
12
81
Multicore is the way to go for all the reasons listed above plus: There are no fast single core chips based on the latest, most efficient CPU architectures like AMD's Phenom or Intel's Core 2 and Core i7. So not only do dual cores have more cores than single core processors, but they are clocked at higher speeds as well.
 

dbcooper1

Senior member
May 22, 2008
594
0
76
Even the newest 1x00 Celerons are multicore with reduced cache. The 400 series aren't bad but also have reduced cache and are based on the Core2duo but single core. That would be a good comparison- an E440 vs. an E1400.
 

Cogman

Lifer
Sep 19, 2000
10,278
126
106
As others have said, dual core CPUs bring a pretty noticeable "smoothness" to running the computer. At very least, the single cores on todays dual cores are a fair amount faster then yesterdays fastest single cores.

Check if you motherboard supports an X2 and throw it in. You'll be surprised at the difference. (but not that windows doesn't like going from single->dual core. You might have to do some fiddling with the registry to tell it you have two cores present)
 

Dimkaumd

Senior member
Dec 1, 2003
335
0
0
Thanks for all ur responses. I am not planning to get a new pc until end of the year. I used to be a gamer a couple of years ago but now I mostly use my pc for internet, watching movies, and some photo editing.

My pc is also liquid cooled. Bought it PugetSystems.com. First I really enjoyed doing business with them and will probably come back for my next purchase, but this time def not getting liquid cooled.

Hopefully by the time im ready for a new purchase Solid state HDs will be much cheaper
 

Tempered81

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2007
6,374
1
81
1 core --> 2 cores is a huge jump (twice the performance). 2 cores ---> 3, 4 6, 8 cores is not much overall (except in perfectly multithreaded applications)
 

Dimkaumd

Senior member
Dec 1, 2003
335
0
0
Any idea if Windows 7 will take advantage of multi cores? It would be nice to be able to run 3-4 diff programs and have them all run on a seperate CPU.
 

Cogman

Lifer
Sep 19, 2000
10,278
126
106
Originally posted by: jaredpace
1 core --> 2 cores is a huge jump (twice the performance). 2 cores ---> 3, 4 6, 8 cores is not much overall (except in perfectly multithreaded applications)

2 cores is not twice the performance. The only time that is close to true is when you are using two separate applications that completely use each core.

As for the OS question, Every Windows OS based off of NT support multiple threads (Think 2000+)
 

yh125d

Diamond Member
Dec 23, 2006
6,907
0
76
Originally posted by: Dimkaumd
Any idea if Windows 7 will take advantage of multi cores? It would be nice to be able to run 3-4 diff programs and have them all run on a seperate CPU.

It's that way now. If in vista you're say, encoding video using a single theaded app, it will be done on core 0. If you then start up some sort of single threaded music editing app, it will use the other. If you're playing a single threaded game that can max out the core it's unning on, the OS will shift the various background apps to the other unused core/s


I'm pretty sure
 

looper

Golden Member
Oct 22, 1999
1,655
10
81
Originally posted by: Duvie...She hates when I am doing things on the pC and just running a webpage through firefox is degraded...Now she doesn't know if I am runing shit in the background....

Duvie, that's funny...

Wife has her comp, I have mine, and about 2 yrs ago I won a laptop from my job. SO, if she screws up her comp SOMEHOW, she is to use the laptop until I get a chance to TRY and straighten out what she did to hers... and, BTW, it's always MY FAULT when SHE screws up HER COMPUTER...

From...

"Married a LONG time..."