«

I'm going to get a new computer, and I've looked at several with dual core
AMD processors. How does a 64x2 running at 2.4 compare with a single core
running at 3.0? My mind tells me the dual core would run faster. Advice?

On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 17:02:22 GMT, DoctorMusic wrote:

>I'm going to get a new computer, and I've looked at several with dual core
>AMD processors. How does a 64x2 running at 2.4 compare with a single core
>running at 3.0? My mind tells me the dual core would run faster. Advice?

Running a 64bit OS or not? If running a 64bit MS OS
news://microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general
(or
http://groups.google.com/group/micro...64bit.general?
)
you are aware of the issues with drivers, scanners , cameras , antivirus
etc?

Check some reviews / manufacturer notes. Often mentioned in 24HSHD
tomshardware and amd.

Single-Core CPUs Ain't Dead Yet | Tom's Hardware
The introduction of AMD's Athlon 64 X2 and Intel's Pentium D dual core
.... It's finally here - a true performance comparison between AMD and
Intel ...
http://www23.tomshardware.com/2005/11/07/single/ - Similar pages

AMD Athlon™ 64 Processors - Dual-Core and Single-Core Computing ...
With the AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual-Core processor, you will experience
increased performance on the latest power-hungry digital media software
applications. ...
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/...8_9485,00.html -
47k - Cached - Similar pages


Me

Thanks for the answers. I am more educated than before. It looks like no
matter what route one goes, ancient software will eventually be rendered
inoperable. I'm resigned to that fact, I suppose.

On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 20:05:20 GMT, DoctorMusic wrote:

>Thanks for the answers. I am more educated than before. It looks like no
>matter what route one goes, ancient software will eventually be rendered
>inoperable. I'm resigned to that fact, I suppose.

I should have made it clear, if using say Windows XP Pro / Home (the
normal 32bit version) all the drivers and H/W should work fine, subject
to normal Windows operation.

Me

After studying on it a bit, I realize that the OS I'm getting is not 64 bit;
therefore, I won't have the driver problems. What a relief. But I will have
the new hardware technology if I want to switch to a 64 bit processor in the
future.

Thanks for the advice. It put me on the track of the pages and chat groups I
needed to figure out what I wanted to do.

Did my last message get through?

On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 22:21:43 GMT, wrote:

> Did my last message get through?

no
--
Steve
?wollof ot drah yllaer sdaerht sekam gnitsop-pot taht erawa uoy ereW

wrote:
> After studying on it a bit, I realize that the OS I'm getting is not 64 bit;
> therefore, I won't have the driver problems. What a relief. But I will have
> the new hardware technology if I want to switch to a 64 bit processor in the
> future.
>
> Thanks for the advice. It put me on the track of the pages and chat groups I
> needed to figure out what I wanted to do.

If your OS isn't 64 bit, what good does having 64 bit processors do?
Hint: nothing. However your 32 bit WinXP Pro do at least work with
multiple processors, which will help. WinXP Home does not have that
capability. But check to see if your main software you use is 64 bit
aware and multiple processor aware. I have a dual core AMD computer on
one side of my living room with Windows XP Pro 64 bit as the OS - and
some programs scream on it. My main software is Vegas Video, ready for
almost anything you can through at it.

On the other side of my living room I still have my old Athlon XP 2000
speed computer which runs some of the lesser advanced programs much
faster than the dual core.

Yes, I realize that if I have a 32 bit OS, it will not make use of 64 bit
hardware to the max. However, the dual core will result in some speed
increase by itself. Bottom line, however, is that I get a machine that is
capable of the 64 bit OS later. It will come with MCE on it, which while not
upgradable is certainly replaceable. XP Pro 64 or some other OS may be in
the future.

Thanks for your observations.