Compare Processors

Comparing processors. How much difference would I see when used for basic computing, photos, music, and making DVDs? Will these do it and is one that much better than the next?

AMD Athlon(TM) II 235e dual-core processor 2.7GHz, 2MB L2, up to 4000MT/bus

AMD Athlon II X2 240e Dual-Core processor 2.8GHz 4000MHz

AMD Athlon(TM) X4 635 quad-core processor 2.9GHz, 2MB L2, up to 4000MHz bus

Intel(R) Pentium(R) Dual-Core processor E5400 2.7GHz, 2MB L2, 800MHz FSB

Intel(R) Pentium(R) Dual-Core processor E5500 2.8GHz, 2MB L2, 800MHz FSB

Intel(R) Pentium(R) Dual-Core processor E6500 2.93GHz, 2MB L2, 1066MHz FSB

Intel(R) Core(TM) i3-540 dual-core processor 3.06GHz, 512KB L2 + 4MB shared L3 cache, DMI 2.5GT/s

 

I couldn't put off buying any longer so never mind. I went with a quad instead of a dual.

 

Just to let you know for basic computing a quad core is kinda useless.

Doubt you will notice any difference viewing photos listing to music and burning DVD's

Really only time you need a quad is for gaming and video encoding or multitasking big apps.

 

no pclover your wrong, I have a 2nd computer, one has a quad, the other a dual. Obviously the quad is better at all of the things he asks about, 4 cores are better than 2 and your only hurting yourself in the long run buying a 2 core as you will eventually upgrade from it in the future. It'll take a bit longer for him to have to upgrade from a quad.

 

I might not need the quad but it was a bundle with 20" monitor on sale for a better price than some of the duals I had been pricing without the monitor. So it was a no brainier I think. It is a HP with Win7, 1T HD, 6MB Ram and a ADM Athlon IIX4 630 Processor 2.80 GHz. Which might not be the best processor out there but it should be enough for me for a long time.
It is being replaced in the stores with a Phenom II processor but the price was going up $200.

 

No, he's not wrong.

I own an E8400 clocked @4.5Ghz, and an AMD Athlon QUAD CORE 620 clocked @3.5Ghz. (Very similar to what the OP is looking at)

The Dual core beats the quad on start up times, and i notice VERY little if any difference on general functions, infact, the dual is faster at opening apps than the quad.

Even in gaming (MW2) both cards in very similar systems, both 4GB ram, both a £80 MB, both with a GTX 295 at the same speeds, both on regular HDD's. The dual scores around 95FPS, the quad is around 88.

 

Yes 4 cores is better in certain cases but the applications your using have to support it. Listing to music and viewing pictures and burning dvd's does not use all 4 cores. I bet it doesn't even use two. Very low CPU usage.


Sometimes the price diff is worth it. You can get a nice dual core for around $50 probably less now as a good quad is 150+

Many apps aren't multi-threaded so if they only use one or two cores a 3.5 Ghz Dual core cpu vs a 2.4 Ghz quad core. The 3.5 OC cpu will win if the app isn't multi-threaded.

I think in your case why the dual core is better is the fact MW2 isn't multi-threaded I think and the dual core has more cache then the quad.

Only time A quad is necessary IMO is high end games (Many games only use one or two cores) video encoding/editing and folding if you do that :-D

Still surprised how well my P4 2.8 Ghz HT Socket 775 does in my moms pc.

 

You must have a defective quad core or something because I notice way faster startup & load times with mine and no in my case the dual core isn't faster at opening files or anything for that matter.

 

Although I usually hate getting into CPU speed discussions (the Geek version of the "East Coast, West Coast" rap wars), I want to add my two cent's worth for those who are not avid benchmark freaks (or, worse yet, don't know the definition of benchmarking).

Having spent years in retailing of both pre-built PCs and PC components, I can safely say at least half of the customers who spring for the latest and greatest i7, six-core or $500 video card will never honestly tax their system to the point they'll notice any difference versus decent mid-line CPUs and cards. It's like buying a bicycle: Unless you're an avid racer, the only things you'll really notice about buying the Lance Armstrong replica (versus a mid-line bike) are a certain amount of status and the balance on your next credit card bill.

For novices and moderate PC users, the best and easiest ways to speed up a PC are often the least expensive. Use a simple, free tune-up program such as Advanced Windows Care that defrags and cleans up the registry. Manage the start up menu and remove or disable bloatware. Add enough memory (minimum of 1 GB for XP, 2 GB for Vista or 7 - it's amazing how many people are still running an XP system using 512 KB or less!)

No offense to those who are into the latest and greatest. This post is only to assure those without an unlimited budget there is hope for either their current PC or a moderately priced new one.

 

I agree with you here. I have a Q6600 (CPU from 2007) + A GTX 275 and guess what? I can max most games out with good FPS.

 

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I'm not a gamer; however I do some video and photo editing. Using an E8400 dual-core, ATI 3850 1 GB vid card, 4GB DDR2 800 and Win 7 Enterprise, it's hard to get my system to even break a sweat. :hyper

 

back to the OP, how does one COMPARE cpus? i see a lot of dual-core 1.8GHz at the store, whereas my 3-yr-old laptop is 2.3GHz. does that mean mine is faster?! hard to believe.

or does dual-core 1.8G more-or-less equate to a single core at 3.6G? when doing comparisons, does one begin by scaling by number of cores?

i used to be able to look at 2 spec sheets (side by side laptops at Best Buy, say) and instantly know which one was better. now the only thing clear to me is which one costs more! so if it's one of those occasions where a sale has skewed the natural order ($400 laptop better than $500 laptop, say), i'll prolly miss it.