corporation than AMD and is almost in a life and death struggle since the AMD's so badly outperformed the Intel P4's.
However, be certain, that Intel is working on recovering their reputation, thus they [as well as AMD] will be bringing out new versions of their Dual Cores post haste. IMHO, rather than learn all the details of the inner workings of the present version, I would wait about three months until they come out with their next generation Dual Cores [not the half arsed thing that Intel just came out with, it didn't even have the thermal protection diode and circuit in it so they could get it out in a hurry].
Then when the AMD's support DDR2 [or they may go directly to DDR3] and Intel has the two cores with a decent means of communication between the two cores, and have some chance of being kept cool, then study the details at places such as tomshardware, anandtech, and other such places.
Seems that many are totally disenchanted with DDR 2 as not really providing the bandwidth expected with their increased latency. Somehow DDR3 with even higher latency, seems to provide substantially more bandwidth than DDR 2.
Again IMHO, allow the Dual Wars to shake out for a while.
This is a pretty noob type question, and you'd think this would be a common question with tons of information on the net.. but god knows I cant find it.
Anyway I'm wondering in medium-to-high end gaming and average desktop applications what is the real-world difference between dual and single core processor(s)?
And why does an intel dual core at 3.0( http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819116212 )
cost nearly the same an AMD dual core 2.0 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103562 )
I'm sure there is some obvious answer I'm not aware of.. so someone educate me!