Location: South Bend, IN Registered: 4/14/2006
Warnings: 0
AMD is cheaper but right now Intel is making faster chips. The Core 2 Duo processors are by far the best.
If I was building a machine however, I would probably go AMD because the processors and motherboards will be soo much cheaper.
Location: other side of the world Registered: 6/27/2006
Warnings: 0
Intel is kinda a class ahead of AMD right now, besides being a bit cheaper, there's nothing that AMD has right now that's really competitive speed-wise. those core 2s are... pretty incredible. I guess you could make the case that you don't really need all that speed though.
__________________
"The glass is neither half-empty or half-full, it's twice as big as it needs to be."
from what i've read, the core 2 won't really speed up individual apps. . .it is only helpful when running several apps at the same time. have you read anything different?
Location: other side of the world Registered: 6/27/2006
Warnings: 0
I've heard it depends on the app itself. Take games for example, from what I understand, games more than a year old or so won't see a noticeable increase in performance, but more recent games are likely to and all future games will be able to benefit from having multiple cores. Does anyone know for sure on all this? All that I know for sure on the core 2s is that they're just stupid fast.
__________________
"The glass is neither half-empty or half-full, it's twice as big as it needs to be."
Location: South Bend, IN Registered: 4/14/2006
Warnings: 0
Vista knows how to use the multiple cores so that will make it faster. Core2 will run video rendering, mp3 encoding much faster and the truth is no one only runs one app on a computer anyway. In my tray right now I have my internet filter, hamachi, itunes, firefox, dyndns, all of my quick starts, avg etc...
If cost is a big factor AMD is better. Also note that when gaming most games don't yet handle two cores well but that is changing because they have to. Four cores will be out by Christmas.
i agree that no one only runs a single app at a time, but i was thinking more along the lines of gaming. when i game, i close out any extraneous programs that are unnecessary. in that scenario, 2 cores or 4 cores aren't going to help with any current games. i am looking forward to the engineering of the future. wild days ahead.
Location: Detroit Registered: 7/23/2006
Warnings: 0
Well I know that they have already released 4 cores because some of the internet sites are selling it and it is running around $1200 for just the processor. I personally dont know much about the cores but I like AMD because I have used it and have not had problems from it but like I said I havent experienced the new cores.
__________________
Micah Bryan
Sniper Mike (gaming name)
Micah5889@gmail.com
Location: other side of the world Registered: 6/27/2006
Warnings: 0
Well on workstation-type computers, you can get 4 cores I think. The Mac Pro comes with dual xeons right? You could (I think) custom-build a 4 core computer, but I'm not 100% sure on that. Either way, like byerspc said 4 cores will be out for regular joes pretty soon. These processors are getting so far ahead, I'd have to say HDD's are kinda falling behind. You could get crazy amounts of space a couple years ago, but we don't seem to have progressed much in HDD space since then. Still in laptops you still can't get more than like 120gb.
__________________
"The glass is neither half-empty or half-full, it's twice as big as it needs to be."
Seems like some are calling two dual core processors quad core but that is not truley quad core ...you never called two distinct processors dual core before you called it dual proc
