Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by ming, Apr 14, 2005.
It just gets worse... read the last section.
LMAO! I hate Intel, AMD is my choice!
i use whatever suite's my pocket really, however each and everytime it has been an AMD
it's a well known fact that single core cpu's will be faster for a long time to come but when you are doing heavy 3d apps or media encoding you can also to a lot more with the dual core cpus at the same time...every reviewer says that if you want to be able to do a lot of things at once and maybe your job or hobby depends on that you should go dual core but for reg users there is no need for anything but a single core.
It's like if you have to get a movie encoded and want to play a game at the same time you can now do that pretty well with a dual core cpu. but if you are a person that likes to turn everything off and just game you should stick with the single core
"I have a very solid suspicion that an Intel Pentium Processor Extreme Edition 840 is going to allow me to play my Counter Strike: Source in the near future all while encoding my DVDs. So while this is not a gamers CPU it looks as though it could certainly have some impact with the multitasker. Certainly we will be using the Intel Pentium Processor Extreme Edition 840 to identify it true and tangible benefits."
HT in reality? Server application.
Dual core in reality? Server application.
Most software still has not been written for HT or dual core advantages. Mebey in the future.
The prob with Intel is that in their haste to beat out AMD they will ship the lowest/slowest version of their DualCores and then bleed out the faster ones slowly to the public (once they get all the bugs out). This way they can brag that they were the first on the block. Mean time any one that's "hard up" for a "DualCore" Intel is gonna wind up with a less that popular (but very pricey) piece of silicon wafer.
It's all ego between these two powerhouses now. They both have great produces, but... PR is all that matters.
I have nothing against either Amd or Intel.
Myself I will always use Intel just for the easy of use and less problems.
Not that I haven't had issues with Intel, I just have had way more problems with Amd systems than the Intel ones.
I work as an assembler/computer tech for a company and the amount of Amd systems that come back with problems is about 4 in 10.
We see maybe 1 in 10 on the Intel systems that have problems.
Performance wise I don't see that big of a jump in the Amd systems over the Intel ones either.
Both make great stuff though, compitition keeps prices down too.
The only AMD I've ever used is a 3000+ at work, my P4 2.54 dances circles around it. I don't care about benchmarks, the AMD was very noticeably slower.
Dual core won't do crap for you unless on a single app unless the app is written for multithreading processors, but...
It would be interesting to see what would happen with a dual core in the situation where you were running two cpu intensive applications. Say video processing and running a game. Windows is designed to multitask. I wonder if it could handle the two threads simultaneous on seperate processors? Memory and disk access collisions would still screw you over though. The desktop pc just is not built for multithread operations.