Dual Core Vs Single Core Processor Real World Performance Difference

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by Edge, Mar 14, 2006.

  1. Edge

    Edge Guest

    I am in the market for a new system to for 3-D, audio creation and
    business apps. Is there a performance improvement for a dual core
    processor with this type of useage or am I better off with a single
    core processor?

    TIA
     
    Edge, Mar 14, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Edge

    Duane Arnold Guest

    Edge wrote:
    > I am in the market for a new system to for 3-D, audio creation and
    > business apps. Is there a performance improvement for a dual core
    > processor with this type of useage or am I better off with a single
    > core processor?
    >
    > TIA
    >


    A program must be programmed to work with the dual processors. If the
    program is not using the dual core technology programming wise, then you
    running out to buy a dual cpu computer is moot.

    Duane :)
     
    Duane Arnold, Mar 14, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Edge

    bmoag Guest

    People confuse the use of dual core threaded applications and the efficiency
    of dual core processors in general.
    All things being equal a dual core processor will always be faster.
    While running any program in XP (Home and Pro can both utilize dual cores)
    there are unrelated background processes eating up CPU cycles. In a dual
    core system the program and background processes can be divided between the
    processors. The difference in speed for most purposes if you are only
    running one program will be small but it is there.
    While encoding a long MP3 with a dual core machine you can effectively run
    other programs without long time outs simultaneously although, depending on
    what you are doing, there will still be hiccups.
    I probably spend most of my time with Photoshop CS2 which has some dual
    threaded processes. Either because of that, or the issue about shunting
    background processes to a second core, there is a significant difference
    when performing complex operations on very large (100mb) files compared to a
    comparably clocked single core machine.
    If you are getting a new machine an AMD dual core with at least 1gb of
    memory is the only the class of machine you should look at. Intel is
    significantly late to market with comparable CPUs.
     
    bmoag, Mar 14, 2006
    #3
  4. Edge

    Joe Guest

    "bmoag" <> wrote

    > All things being equal a dual core processor will always be faster.


    I disagree. If you have one program that is NOT written to take advantage of
    dual processing then a single core will beat it if that is all you are
    doing. Dual cores shine in muti-tasking.

    Joe
     
    Joe, Mar 15, 2006
    #4
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Ben Markson

    dual core vs. dual processor

    Ben Markson, Nov 10, 2005, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    44
    Views:
    1,075
    Duane Arnold
    Nov 14, 2005
  2. Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)

    photo computers: dual core, dual cpu, or single?

    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), May 21, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    810
    Photofast
    Jun 20, 2006
  3. =?Utf-8?B?TmllbHMgQ2hyLg==?=

    posible: dual core + single core

    =?Utf-8?B?TmllbHMgQ2hyLg==?=, Nov 22, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    541
    =?Utf-8?B?TmllbHMgQ2hyLg==?=
    Nov 22, 2005
  4. =?Utf-8?B?Q2FybG9z?=

    From single core to dual core

    =?Utf-8?B?Q2FybG9z?=, Aug 5, 2006, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    26
    Views:
    932
    Colin Barnhorst
    Aug 6, 2006
  5. Spin
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    1,644
    gregg
    Oct 1, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page