Dual Core Vs Single Core Processor Real World Performance Difference

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

 

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.

 

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