Dual core better for my needs?

TristanP

Main needs are:

Photoshop CS and RAW file conversion for digital photos
DVD and CD ripping and burning
Web browsing

Would a dual core (say 2.8 GHz) do a better job than a slightly faster (say 3.2 GHz) single core with everything else being equal (1+ GB RAM, SATA HDs)?

Don't laugh, but the PC now is a P3 700 - and it's killing me. Time to upgrade after 5 years.

ian408

Possibly. But why not get a dual processor?

TristanP

Simple - $ is always a consideration.

USAIR

I just went from a 2.8 1Gig Dell with all the crap on it to a 2.8 dual core 2Gig.
I love it for photoshop runs lots faster.
But I also went with a system that has ONLY what I put on it (software wise).
I would stay with the 2.8 it's cheaper 2 Gig is good for me not sure if 3 or 4Gig would help much.
I have 2 monitors also ...now this is just great for ps.
Look here.

Fred

Khaos

1. AMD has shown core clock speed doesn't mean squat when it comes to actual performance. Intel tried to shove that down our throats and lost.

2. Dual core will work best with some programs, PS being one of them.

3. The other big thing is that when doing something CPU intensive like ripping DVDs, you can do something else using the second core and not have to worry about corruption issues or slow down. Anybody remember the days when you burned a CD and that was all you did unless you wanted to create a coaster?

4. Multiple core CPUs are the future. It's the only way they know of now to boost performance without boosting clock cycles that in turn are generating too much heat. That being said, software will begin to be programmed to take adavantage of multiple core CPUs.

cmason

Well, I built an AMD Athalon 3000+, with 1GB memory, 2HDs. It runs like a charm, handles CS2 and conversions easily, no performance issues that I can see. Granted, I am not converting 300 pics at a time, but then I don't know how it would perform in that case. I do process 50 or so at a time, and it goes just fine, no issues that I can see.

I worry about the advanced core and dual processors at this stage, as there are few applications that are designed to take advantage of it, and most of those are 64bit. This means you need the 64bit version of XP or the new Vista in order to take any advantage of it, meaning difficult to do.

TristanP

I'm looking at Dells but will immediately wipe it and load my own stuff if I get one. So really, it's a comparison of getting the complete box from them or going with individual components (motherboard bundle from mwave.com, others from newegg). Dell probably comes out on top for price, but the other way I can pick my components, just like my current PC. Dual core looks like it's definately the way to go, so thanks for the input guys.

bwg

TristanP wrote:

I'm looking at Dells but will immediately wipe it and load my own stuff if I get one. So really, it's a comparison of getting the complete box from them or going with individual components (motherboard bundle from mwave.com, others from newegg). Dell probably comes out on top for price, but the other way I can pick my components, just like my current PC. Dual core looks like it's definately the way to go, so thanks for the input guys.

good benchmark article on the core-duo vs other desktop processors.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q2/core-duo/index.x?pg=1

cmason

bigwebguy wrote:

good benchmark article on the core-duo vs other desktop processors.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q2/core-duo/index.x?pg=1

Core Duo T2600 is the new Intel machine, btw:

Ric Grupe

Yes!
Take your pick:

http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/computer_series.do?series_name=d4100_series&catLevel=2&category=desktops/hp_pavilion&storeName=computer_store

I picked the Intel and love it.

Bob Bell

I bleed intel blue. I have a dual core 3.0 gig with 2 gigs of ram and an x800 video card and it smokes my p4 2.6 gig with 2 gigs of ram and a 9600 card. Both machines have at least 250 gig of storage. The newer one has SATA.

I use photo mechanic instead of bridge to review images and edit in PS through a link in PM. Its very quick and no real issues editing 16 bit tiffs in CMYK. My other machine would bog down and take a minute to open the images which are in the 200meg range.

bwg

just throwing this out here, not in response to anyone in particular but the intel core-duo is not the same as a dual core pentium. the core-duo is a completely new architecture that has not made it's way into mainstream desktops yet. It is MUCH better than the original intel dual core chips.

if you look at the link i posted earlier you'll see that the core duo, which is a moblie chip for all intents and purposes, held it's own against all but the most powerful (and expensive) AMD desktop chips which are the current perfomance kings.

so in short, dont confuse core-duo with dual core.

carry on.

Khaos

cmason wrote:

Well, I built an AMD Athalon 3000+, with 1GB memory, 2HDs. It runs like a charm, handles CS2 and conversions easily, no performance issues that I can see. Granted, I am not converting 300 pics at a time, but then I don't know how it would perform in that case. I do process 50 or so at a time, and it goes just fine, no issues that I can see.

I worry about the advanced core and dual processors at this stage, as there are few applications that are designed to take advantage of it, and most of those are 64bit. This means you need the 64bit version of XP or the new Vista in order to take any advantage of it, meaning difficult to do.

Mostly 64 bit? Where did you get this info? I'm interested. Most hardware doesn't have drivers to run 64 bit.

At this stage? It isn't a stage. The technology is here and humming along nicely.

Yes, single core will perform very well and will continue to do so. However, multi-core processors are here now and will dominate in the future and software will accomodate to them. I'm running a single core also, but when I decide to rebuild, it will be a dual core.