What are you guys thoughts on the upcoming dual core processors? Is it worth getting? Is there any big difference? Is the single core of a dual the same as the regular single core?
Lord of the Peach
19th April 2004
Worth getting: yes, if the price is not too steep Differnce: I herd that it would be big, read some reviews on them:p I think they have diffent cores for dual core processor.
What does the Fox say?
23rd November 2002
It is worth getting, if you do not have an AMD Athlon 64 processor, or one of the newer Pentium 4s.
If you already have an Athlon 64, then I wouldn't recommend it. There are bound to be a few issues cropping up, and the speed difference will not be noticable early on.
20th July 2004
Isnt it true that right now dual cores cannot be used to their full potential because software is not able to rise up to that kind of power??? Dual core CPUs look promising , all we have to do is give it time and they will probably take over the market in a little while, it would be cool if they did
I'm too cool to Post
17th July 2003
It depends on how the applications are handled. Being as you have two cores and 2 caches, will they alternate clock cycles so that it works kinda like SLI in processing data or is each core assigned a task?
Being as the dual core AMD CPU will work in a stock socket 939 CPU it seems the first method of operation. This should be a major boost in performance.
According to Toms Hardware Guide, I think I read that the first dual core CPU will be rated at 4 GHz, have dual 512K caches, and cost $580 per 1000.
First dual core from AMD is 4300+ i think and it be clocked at 2.2ghz if im right..
It's Not Easy Being Green
10th November 2003
hay intels answer to AMDs 64bit prosscurs. hay they may cost 2 times as much but the base speed of 3.2 is a killer va amds 1.4 64biy for 500$ so hay go0t intell! a 3.7 overclocked to 4.6 hay that is killer hahahaha for a 5000$ dame cooling! ahhahahah
12th March 2004
from what i have read there wont be a big increase in performance until software is written to benefit from having two processors. games run on clock speed and these processors are slower but have more bandwith, so for gaming they wont make a great difference. Dual processors have come about as it is gettng difficult to increase clock speed which is why there has been no major increase in speeds recently seems like AMD will have the edge over INTEL. : quotes from a couple of websites
a website"AMD have not just stuck two cores together as Intel but have integrated them on the chip to work much more efficiently with each of the cores having its own L2 cache which you can see in the top section of the above picture. They share the same dual-channel DDR memory controller and HyperTransport links."[/quote]
[quote=another website]"For single threaded applications like most games, look for AMD to continue pushing single core processors like the FX line up to gamers because raw clockspeed will still be king. Initially dual cores will be aimed at power users and the server market. Current pricing levels will keep end users on single core processors"
Thinking about it.
For the end-user this means a significant increase in response and performance when running multiple applications simultaneously. The AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual-Core processor outperforms the highest-performing AMD Athlon™ 64 4000+ single-core processor on multi-tasking benchmarks by up to 30%. The dual core out beats the 4000+ whoa http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_13041%5E13078,00.html The AMD dual core 4200+ is clocked at 2.2ghz http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/desktop/Default.aspx
Sorry for double post but heres a link to benchmarking on game with the dual cores. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410&p=7