dual coe 3.0 vs single core 3.0

[rookie1010]

hey

does a dual core 3.0 GHz processor system offer twice the amount of performance that a single core 3.0 GHz offers, keeping in mind that all the other resources are not bottlenecks in anyway?

 

[Yoad]

No, it does not offer twice the amount of a single core one

But it will function x2 better than a single core one when you will multi task (Like, run a DVD Burning session and all at once playing say... FEAR, you wont be able to on a single core, but with good enough system you could with a dual core )

Also, on NONE-multi tasking / multi threading apps a single core might actualy performe better.

 

[Brtnboarder495]

Dual core only delivers better performanced when one is heavily multitasking or using heavy applications/games that support dual core. If you don't multitask alot, or use applications/games that are able to utilize dual core, dual core is not for you.

Also, stay away from Pentium D

 

[Kaiser28]

I agree with what you are saying about dual and signle core but you have to keep in mind that in future evreything will be multithreaded so i think it is worthed to get a dual core it will be usefull in the near future.

 

[harry18]

well on my other computer, with is a dual core 3ghz, i ran superpi and it got 45seconds, my single core, 3.4ghz does it in a the same time

 

[Nitestick]

dual cores are great. you can get far more than double performance in some instances. take the example already mentioned: gaming and encoding. if you try this with even a top of the line single core you will get rock bottom FPS (tested with a 6800gt, FX-57 and MS Flight Simulator, i think resulted in 5FPS :amazed: ) and poor encoding performance. with a dual core you will get almost full performance from both applications although a bit lower due to memory bandwidth constraints. in video encoding you will get effectively double the performance. with the price of dual cores steadily dropping i don't see any reason not to get one as the prices are far lower than buying 2 of the equivelant single cores.....thats value .

the pentium D's aren't all bad it depends on what you are using them for and your budget.

 

[Yoad]

^Finaly a guy who knows his ****!!! You guys can flame me all day long on what I say about dual vs single cores but in the end it all comes to the conclusion that a dual core would be a better solution nowdays because everyone has to multitask here and there

(In another post I said 95% the same thing as you did nitestick and all they did is two pages of flames concentrated at me..)

-Jo,

 

[blaackoran]

atleast you can still use your ram for am2/conroe if you bought a pentium D..

where i live: pentium d 940 is 100$ less then a x2 3800+.....

Im still putting a 3800+ in my other computer though....just to have one of each

 

[Tyler1989]

Let's see if I can dig up an old Dual Core / 64 bit thread I made.

http://www.techist.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=85059

 

[Brtnboarder495]

dual cores are great. you can get far more than double performance in some instances. take the example already mentioned: gaming and encoding. if you try this with even a top of the line single core you will get rock bottom FPS (tested with a 6800gt, FX-57 and MS Flight Simulator, i think resulted in 5FPS ) and poor encoding performance. with a dual core you will get almost full performance from both applications although a bit lower due to memory bandwidth constraints. in video encoding you will get effectively double the performance. with the price of dual cores steadily dropping i don't see any reason not to get one as the prices are far lower than buying 2 of the equivelant single cores.....thats value .

the pentium D's aren't all bad it depends on what you are using them for and your budget.

I'm pretty confident that encoding items and the flight simulator do not support dual-core CPU's, that is, unless you were talking about doing both simultaneously, in which, a dual-core processor would surely pull ahead. As already stated, dual-core is only useful when you are doing multiple things at one time that require a lot of "juice", or using an application or game that supports dual-core processors (basically, none, hopefully more items will support it soon though). So if you are constrained money wise, a single core will suffice. However, Intel has already dropped single core CPU's altogether in there newest line of CPU's, after the Pentium series is dropped (rather soon I'd imagine, before 2008 probably), all their CPU's will be dual and quad core. So in all honesty, a dual-core CPU is probably the way to go, as it's actually hard to find a solid single core CPU that is not overly priced (FX series for example ... )