they always work the best
Will you be moving to a dual-core processor soon?
Yes (Why and which one?)
No (What's holding you back?)
Maybe (Why or why not?)
I already have (Which one?)
I don't know what you are talking about
![]() | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
Will you be moving to a dual-core processor soon?
Yes (Why and which one?)
No (What's holding you back?)
Maybe (Why or why not?)
I already have (Which one?)
I don't know what you are talking about
Discussion is locked
If I do go dual core, it will be with AMD. I only look at or consider (and own) AMD machines. As far as dual core goes, I don't have a need for the processing speed at the moment. But, if I ever do get into graphics and a lot more of my picture taking and putting them on my computer (I want to put my home VHS tapes on DVD, too), I will probably need the extra processing power. Especiall if Paint Shop Pro or some such program changes in order to utilize the features.
I was going to get a AMD before I saw the tests! I now have an AMD, although not a dual. But I have had no problems with it & am waiting till I do, to get a new one! But it keeps going like the rabbit on a battery fix! But I saw the tests & the prices, and I would be stupid not to keep going w/AMD! It's always been ahead of Intel, at a price that could never equal the price of the Intel. They've always been over rated & over priced! With the AMD, you never did have to have as much as you did with Intel. the AMD always did out preform the Intel of equal value in price. So for my money, AMD can not be beat! It makes ya kind'a proud that you don't have to keep up w/the Jone's, by buying an Intel processor/chip set!!!!!
I want one of those dual-processor computers...but I already have a year-old computer; I'm not about to dump this and move onto dual-processor, its still expensive. I want one badly, though...if I was to get one, then I'd go for the AMD Athlon X2 4200+, all the way! Intel makes crappy chips now, I read the battle between the dual-processors a few months back, on this very website, CNET, and I was rather disappointed by Intel's performance in every field. AMD all the way, dude!
Yes I will be buying Intel dual core. The #1 reason may be that I have several friends who work there. But I have had trouble with AMD running hot. Also AMD seemed to be slower with a Raid setup. Although I may be delusional there.
Back in the stone-age a friend from Intel had a dual processor 333 over-clocked that was used as a server at LAN parties. We would run Quake and Half-life with as many as 32 people in the house and it was bullet proof
Atli
THIS PROCESSOR IS STILL QUITE NEW. FOR NOW I'LL STICK WITH MY HYPER-THREADING COMPUTER BECAUSE IT HAS A PROVEN TRACK RECORD.IF DUAL CORE PROVES TO BE BETTER THAN HYPER-THREADING THAN I WILL PROBABLY GET IT ON MY NEXT COMPUTER.BUT FOR NOW I'D RATHER WAIT AND SEE HOW IT TURNS OUT IN THE LONG RUN.
well i am still happy with my intel p3 and and dear old win xp pro but i am waiting to go out on shopping spree ones the new BULKY vista comes out coz i know its gonna be big like 2 gigs or something(correct me if i am wrong) so the requirement of that, the need and the performance of the OS will make me decide with which one to buy but taking in the prices factor i think i'll go with AMD as intel is way to costly.
in the end couple of seconds up down will make no big difference in long time usage and with me planning to uprade to lot like including lots of stuff like graphic cards, bigg bigg hardives and making a gaming come media center pc saving on the proccessor front will sure help so its VERDICT AMD FOR ME .
Way too much money for now at least. I'd rather see if the hype is a fact first which it usualy isn't. And it seems if things don't go well out of the box you get the usual run around. That surprise anyone? Tech help don't make me laugh.
Two reasons, lack of softwear that uses dual core, and I do not need the added capability. I probably will not got 64 bit processing until I have to do so.
I have a intel pentum d procceser 820. It performs beautifualy and is worth it to buy.
i have been deciding between a duel processer and a normal one when i saw the macbook pro. I am a mac supporter, but since there wasnt much soft available, i was going to get a different lap top for my graduation. Then i saw it, fast and duel processers, this is a dream come true
I am done "upgrading" for a long-time. Why do I need to save a few nanoseconds on a few programs? My Athlon XP64+ 3500 does the job very well for now.
Well, I'm really a newbie when it comes to this stuff. But I went to a retail store and bought Gateway 840GM. Dual core 64 bit processor, told them I wanted something that was not too expensive for gaming. Just got the tower, should of bought the monitor. Everything is fast. I'm very happy. Just beware if you upgrade on video card. I found out the hard way.
Why anyone would overpay for underperformance is beyond me. AMD is the choice hands down. My system has 4 monitors & I really put it through its paces - realtime streaming stock quotes/charts while doing video editing/webwork all the same time. Dual Core will really improve my performance.
I just might if a nice enough system comes along for gaming. Let the price drop a bit first. Really good systems configured for games, Voodoo, are quite pricey. But if your a edegy gamer with funds you'll do it.
I do quite well on my 32bit systems and I expect some of those are getting quite cheap about now. So it may be time to dive into some new systems for 200, 300 or less bucks.
Works for me
i wish i could afford one of these beasts. Benchmarks on this CPU have all been outstanding.
and of corse F.E.A.R, City of Villains, Call of Duty 2 and Quake 4 all support multi-threaded code. Great news for the gamer.
I do a lot of intensive video editing and DVD burning. My single core system is not only too slow but I can't do anything else on the system while either editing or burning a DVD. A friend of mine told me I should just buy a stand alone system dedicated to video work rather than invest in a dual core processor.
Anybody have any experience along these lines - which approach is best?
what you need is a good balanced system. You want Ram that will keep up with your cpu and vice versa. This can easily be done on one cpu. Price the AMD athlon x2 3800+ combine it with some OCZ titanium ram, make sure you get at least a 2 gb capacity, and one of western digitals new line of 16mb buffer hard drives. Then you would have a system that can do everything you want and more.
I purchased a Pentium D 820 this past fall, and although it runs well, it's not the speed demon that was promised. I'm happy enough with it, but I don't play games or do much intense CPU work. It is nice to have spare power when the computer is running an automatic program, such as a virus scan or defrag, because the program I am working with still receives enough CPU uasage to prevent most slow-downs, but they sometimes still occur. I have 1 GHz of DDR2 SDRAM, and I'm wondering if I should double that. I don't know exactly how the dual chips utilize the RAM. I wonder if the RAM is dedicated to each CPU separately. If so, perhaps my small problems would be improved with a memory upgrade. I would also recommend that one buy the fastest CPU affordable, and perhaps an AMD chip. I wish I had waited just a bit longer.