Unsolved
This post is more than 5 years old
12 Posts
0
20174
Dual Core vs. Single Core (Again!)
I am about to purchase an Inspiron E1705. I've read the other postings in the Dell Forums about this issue, and I realize that, while most common software doesn't yet take advantage of dual core platforms, eventually the code will be re-written. Also, I don't mind spending the extra few dollars for the dual core in anticipation of this (at this time, I think it's only fifty dollars extra). I was going to order a dual core model, but I came across this brief article in the New York Times' technology section. I'm concerned about the author's statement that under ordinary circumstances, one can actually take a performance hit using a dual core chip.
I just use "garden variety" software: Word, Excel, MS Money, iTunes, Palm Desktop, and, of course, a web browser. Occasionally I use MS Publisher. I may sometimes have two or three open at once. I also have an internet security suite, a Yahoo Widget, and a few other things that are typically running in the background in Windows.
I was going to order 512MB of RAM for the new machine, but the salesperson recommended 1GB, in case I upgrade to Vista, which I may or may not do for this machine, depending upon when it comes out, how long it takes to work out most of the bugs, etc. (I generally get a new machine every three years).
Does anyone know or have an opinion about this performance issue, as well as memory requirements? Thanks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. What does it mean when a computer is described as being "dual core" or "single core"?
A. A computer described as "dual core" has two processors on a single chip to share the processing demands of several programs at once. A single-core chip has one processor to deal with the needs of all the running programs. (There are also computers advertised as "dual-processor," which means that they have two physically separate processor chips inside.)
If you don't use a lot of programs at once, a single-core processor can perform faster than a dual-core processor. Many current software programs are not coded to take proper advantage of a dual-core processor's power. But because a dual-core processor can spread the workload around, people who keep several programs open and running may notice better speed when using a computer with a dual-core processor.
I just use "garden variety" software: Word, Excel, MS Money, iTunes, Palm Desktop, and, of course, a web browser. Occasionally I use MS Publisher. I may sometimes have two or three open at once. I also have an internet security suite, a Yahoo Widget, and a few other things that are typically running in the background in Windows.
I was going to order 512MB of RAM for the new machine, but the salesperson recommended 1GB, in case I upgrade to Vista, which I may or may not do for this machine, depending upon when it comes out, how long it takes to work out most of the bugs, etc. (I generally get a new machine every three years).
Does anyone know or have an opinion about this performance issue, as well as memory requirements? Thanks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. What does it mean when a computer is described as being "dual core" or "single core"?
A. A computer described as "dual core" has two processors on a single chip to share the processing demands of several programs at once. A single-core chip has one processor to deal with the needs of all the running programs. (There are also computers advertised as "dual-processor," which means that they have two physically separate processor chips inside.)
If you don't use a lot of programs at once, a single-core processor can perform faster than a dual-core processor. Many current software programs are not coded to take proper advantage of a dual-core processor's power. But because a dual-core processor can spread the workload around, people who keep several programs open and running may notice better speed when using a computer with a dual-core processor.
trunksu
41 Posts
0
June 10th, 2006 16:00
p51d007
52 Posts
0
June 10th, 2006 19:00
I noticed a difference, just on booting, file transfers etc.
Also, the big diff I see is when I use photoshop, which is
written for dual & HT processors.
My home computer, 2.8ghz HT P4, renders slower than my 1.6ghz
dual core.
Not sure how well they work, but there are also free/shareware
programs that allow you to set the processor affinity for "cpu0
or cpu1"
tonebalone
1.4K Posts
0
June 11th, 2006 18:00
jeyges
12 Posts
0
June 12th, 2006 09:00
Thank you all very much for your help!
jeyges
12 Posts
0
June 12th, 2006 19:00
Entropy42
529 Posts
0
June 12th, 2006 19:00
It is true that a dual core CPU can POSSIBLY perform worse than a similar single core one due to bus abritration overhead. The performance hit is so small that it will almost never be noticeable. Also, sometimes single core CPUs are available with higher clock speeds and cache sizes than their dual core relatives (I think the fastest single core Athlon 64 is 2.6 or 2.8 GHz while the fastest dual core is .2 below that). In the case of the Core Solo vs. Core Duo, this is not the case - the Solos are only available at the low end of the clock speed range.
Also, there was a higher chance of a performance hit with the old Pentium D due to the way it was cobbled together (basically two seperate Pentium 4 dies in the same packaging), whereas the Core Duo has a VERY nice unified L2 cache.
In the case of the Core Duo, there is *no* reason not to go with it over the Solo if you can afford it.