Single, multi and Quad core cpu's

[Dumbone]

HI
Another dumb question to add to my list!!!
We have single core,,, dual core and quad core cpu?s. I know what the single core cpu can do. Now,,, what about the dual core and quad core cpu?s?
In other words, does a dual core have any advantage over a single core and does a quad core have a advantage over a dual core?
In my situation most times I am logged onto my isp and browsing the internet. There are times that I will be downloading music,,, trying to edit music,,, transferring pictures from memory sticks and trying to edit a picture for printing. Sometimes 2 or 3 of those at the same time.
I assume that multi core processors will let me do 2 things at a time with a minimal loss of speed.
Does the o/s determine what cpu core will handle a particular process?
I need all the help I can get! LOLOL

Thanks
Dumbone

 

[swtethan]

For what you do, you would want a quad core processor. Basically it packs 4 processors into one chip. Get it? Dual core is two..... quad core is four. You can run a lot more programs at once with a quad core than a dual or single core processor.

 

[bryanW1995]

yes, and you can download porn much faster on a quad core, too!

 

[Dumbone]

At my age porn makes the old heart beat too fast!! LOLOLOL

There are a lot of dual core processors out there running Winxp and Vista.
Will WinXP and Vista handle a quad core processor without any problems?

Thanks
Dumbone

 

[swtethan]

xp and vista are fine for a quad. Ill be running my quad on xp.

 

[CTho9305]

In my situation most times I am logged onto my isp and browsing the internet. There are times that I will be downloading music,,, trying to edit music,,, transferring pictures from memory sticks and trying to edit a picture for printing. Sometimes 2 or 3 of those at the same time.
I assume that multi core processors will let me do 2 things at a time with a minimal loss of speed.

Browsing the web, downloading music, and transferring files are negligible from the perspective of CPU load. Unless your image editing spends a lot of time doing actual calculations and your music editing does too (i.e. you find yourself waiting for the image/music edits to happen AND it's just because you're low on RAM and you do both at the same time, I wouldn't expect you to gain much with a quad core.

Now, dual core CPUs are nice even if you don't do many cpu-intensive things at the same time, because they often help make the computer just "feel" more snappy.

 

[Cairo777]

Man if that is all you do with your computer... quad core is overkill., for most work that folks do on a computer, even a speedy single core (with enough RAM and fast HD) will do just fine.

My dad's comp has been running an a single core AMD Barton 2500+ for YEARS. I am still amazed as to how speedy his system is with 1GIG of RAM and a newer 500 GB drive. He will never need dual or quad core... period. He surfs the net, uses Word and Excel, downloads a few things, transfers photos from his memory stick or camera directly... uses Skype, uses a webcam, and listens to music etc and I have yet to see his system bogged down..

There are no inherent speed advantages to using a similarly clocked single core, dual core or quad core of the same generation (if all things are equal). Where these bad boy dual core/quad cores kick in is either in specific applications that were coded to take advantage of multiple cores (few apps do which makes me sad but more and more are coming out) or when you specifically do many multiple things at the same time? not just have a few apps open in the background just sitting there or being minimally used.

Anyhow my point to save you money and not go for a quad core etc is probably no longer valid for the simple reason that now for like $266 you can get a quad core. In other words, EVEN if you don't use it, never will use it... well... why not! Since the cost is dropping so far, and most boards automatically support the quads there is a good reason to get it and you never know what the future will bring us.

I can tell you that when I went from a single core AMD 3200+ to my first dual core AMD X2 3800+ way back when, although the chips were the same speed MHZ wise, I was shocked at how much speedier my system seemed to react when I was unraring a huge volume, listening to music and surfing the net all while having a game minimized in the background and running a full system virus scan. That test would have totally CRUSHED my older single core system.

 

[Bradtechonline]

Mid Range Dual Core CPU should do you good. I build X2 3600's for PO machines, and home builds. People seem to be very satisfied with them, and they are only 60 bucks. I even run one in my main gaming rig but overclocked. I could tell a huge difference even without the overclock vs my very fast single core CPU. I didn't think I multi-tasked enough to notice a difference, but I was really wrong. The difference in basic things I do is night, and day compared to my old single core. Quad Core is bleeding edge right now, for the average user a dual core should do you fine.

 

[SerpentRoyal]

Overclock E4300/E4400 to 3.0GHz. Plenty of speed for your needs.

 

[Noubourne]

Bottom of the line dual-core is more than enough for his needs. The cheapest C2D he can get would be my recommendation.

I gave my dad a dualie X2 3800 just because he's super paranoid about viruses and stuff, so he likes to scan all the time, and with the dual-core he can scan AND do his email and transfer/correct/organize his family photos all at the same time.

Going at the bottom of the CPU spectrum also allowed me to make his machine dead silent. It's nearly inaudible; they have to open the desk door and look at the lights to see if it's on or not.

 

[piasabird]

Still using a PIII at home. Works pretty good. 1.2 gig Tulatin Core Celeron.

 

[BoboKatt]

One thing I am excited to see is if going to a quad core over a dual core will give me an even stronger sense of "snappiness" on my OS as I noted when I went from single core to dual core. I doubt it really but time will tell

 

[eelw]

The ability to run multiple video encodes without bogging down the system is fun.

 

[Dumbone]

HI
Thanks for the info!
My old system is a 7 years old. It is running a 1200 T-Berd a overclocked to 1300+ with 768 meg of ram. I also have a older ATI tv tuner card in the system and even though that has hardware decoding in it my little ole pc still gets very slow when I watch tv and do a few other things at the same time.
I won't hesitate to use a multicore cpu and for the price difference I just might go with the quad core. More important to me is I will build a system with at least 3 gig of ram in it!!! I think serial hard drives might help in the data flow too.
I am not one to overclock and just did overclock this old system a few weeks ago to see if I could do it. Thus I'll start off with the fastest dual or quad core I can afford!
Stability and day to day dependability is more important to me.
Thanks
Dumbone