Dual core vs. Single

Status
Not open for further replies.

pudkins

Solid State Member
Messages
18
I'm helping someone build a PC, and I started wondering how much of an advantage a dual core give. Specifically the
the X2 4800+ vs. the FX- 57. The FX costs 500, and the X2 costs 300. Which is a better value, and about how much does a dual core help in general?

Also, just to get this cleared up, how does this Conroe compare to the two? Thanks for any clarification.
 
Conroe obliterates both of them, get a Conroe, and you want dual-core for sure. Single core is so 90's. <- lol

Seriously, Core 2 Duo annihilates those AMD's, PLEASE don't spend money on those.

This is what I have. Soooo awesome! :) I have it running at 3.4Ghz right now, it freaking flies.
 
question is? what is going to be the main use of the system? Conroe is better right now for general CPU usage overall... but if price if the game, then AM2 might be what your looking for. go with a AM2 4400 x2 and 2GB of RAM... the FX series is overrated and super expensive for what you get.
 
Becuase its an FX-57..FX is AMD flagship chip with an unlocked multiplier so they're good for OC'n. The problem is Every single core 2 duo from intel completely and utterly destroys all of AMDs chips right now. The one the General has, running at 3.4GHz is about 1.7 times faster than the FX at stock speeds.

Question: Why hasn't AMD broken the 3GHz mark yet? What on EARTH are they waiting for?
 
Nukem said:
what single core are you talking about?? a link would help....
The FX-57 in the OP.

And Benny, isn't a 2.0GHz AMD about equal to a 3.0GHz intel? I've had that confirmed a lot, here, friends, and experience.
 
yea, yea.. I'm a dummy and didn't see the link to begin with... DUAL CORE all the way...

what's better. one core with x.x or 2 with x.x

that is what you have to work with....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom