Printable View
Hi all, quick question. Is a dual core processor running at 2.73 ghz as fast as a quad core processor running at 2.6 ghz? I have a motherboard that would support a quad core cpu, but is it really worth the money and time to change the cpu if it will not show and improvement in operation of the system.
AMD Athlon 2.73 dual core
2 gig ram
Asus M2N32 MB
WinXP pro
SuperSparks found the following...Its a must read;)
How Many CPU Cores Do You Need?
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/multi-...iew-31567.html
Excellent reading :)
Good information Steve, it must come down to the software that is being used, my guess is that the system I mentioned would benefit because it is using some programming software. Still the increase in performance would be minimal. Thanks again.
What that article doesn't mention is the benefit you get in Windows itself from multiple cores. If you do a lot of multitasking then you certainly do notice a difference. I'm running a Core i7 (which is effectively 8 core, with Hyperthreading) for my main rig, and a Core 2 Duo for my secondary rig, and I really do notice a difference. The only thing that can max out the i7 are apps which are designed to do so, such as Prime95 and OCCT. In normal use, nothing at all comes close to maxing out all 4 cores, thus everything is very responsive. On the C2D rig, both cores do sometimes get maxed out, resulting in the usual thumb-twiddling waiting periods.
SuperSparks, would you say that a 64bit operating system would benefit from a quad core cpu? this may be comparing apples to oranges because we are talking about 64bit applications vs 32bit applications, but all in all there would be some benefit even if it were negligible.
No, I honestly don't think that the number of cores bears any relationship to whether an OS is 32-bit or 64-bit. Having said that, I can imagine that there could be some situations that the extra RAM that you can use with 64-bit could sometimes be of benefit to a multi-core CPU though. I don't have any evidence to back that statement up, I hasten to add, it's just my gut feeling.
If the Windows 7 Upgrade Advisor indicates that your PC can support a 64-bit version of Windows, give 64-bit a try.
WindowsSecrets.com > Top Story, July 16, 2009
Some versions of Windows 7 worth it, others not - By Woody Leonhard
http://windowssecrets.com/2009/07/16...rs-not/#story3Quote:
If your system uses an Intel Core 2 Duo/AMD Athlon 64 or newer processor, you can run 64-bit. But choosing between 32-bit and 64-bit Windows has more implications than you might think.
Yes, the 64-bit versions of Windows 7 can handle more memory — 32-bit versions top out around 3.4GB. Yes, 64-bit applications frequently run faster than their 32-bit brethren.
But the devil's in the drivers: many manufacturers adamantly refuse to spend the money to create 64-bit drivers for older hardware. After all, they make money by selling new hardware, and 64-bit compatibility doesn't rate very high on the profit-center scorecard.
Fortunately, there's an easy way to tell whether your Vista machine and its peripherals support 64-bit versions of Windows 7. Microsoft's Windows 7 Upgrade Advisor scans your computer and tells you whether Microsoft-approved 64-bit drivers are available for your equipment.