Dual Core Processors

[Fargo]

now i must be a bit behind the technology nowdays, i know what dual processor technology is all about but im baffled as to the what spec is best, for example in the old days i knew what speed processor i was getting, ie P4 3ghz etc, but now im reading stuff like - Intel® CoreTM 2 Duo Processor E6300 (1.86GHz, 2MB Cache, 1066MHz FSB)

am i too assume that its two processors each running at 1.86ghz (making at total of 3.72ghz)

or Intel® Pentium® D Processor 820 (2.80GHz, 2x1 MB L2 Cache, 533MHz FSB) is that 5.6ghz total.

and whats AMD AthlonTM 64 X2 dual-core processor 5000+

[ColinBarber]

Yes they are two processors. You cannot just double the clock speed and compare to the older single core processors as alot of programs do not make use of two processors and therefore you don't get double the performance.

The current Intel processors (Core 2 Duo) and the Dual/Quad core Xeons wipe the floor of AMD.

[Anees]

The current Intel processors (Core 2 Duo) and the Dual/Quad core Xeons wipe the floor of AMD.

Unfortunetly (being an AMD fan) the current Core 2 Duo chips do significantly out perform the AMD X2 solutions, but AMD have slashed prices to try to remain attractive...... depends what you want the PC for..

With more applications making use of dual cores in the future they will offer a large increase in performance, but the difference at the moment is not really massive.

[Jolliffee]

now i must be a bit behind the technology nowdays, i know what dual processor technology is all about but im baffled as to the what spec is best, for example in the old days i knew what speed processor i was getting, ie P4 3ghz etc, but now im reading stuff like - Intel® CoreTM 2 Duo Processor E6300 (1.86GHz, 2MB Cache, 1066MHz FSB)

am i too assume that its two processors each running at 1.86ghz (making at total of 3.72ghz)

or Intel® Pentium® D Processor 820 (2.80GHz, 2x1 MB L2 Cache, 533MHz FSB) is that 5.6ghz total.

and whats AMD AthlonTM 64 X2 dual-core processor 5000+

The E6300 chip is the best £ for the mips you can get (today), with very little effort it is possible to crank the clock and get even more mips. If your pockets can stand it the E6600 will give you more gaming power.

[TheDon]

ok ok, now i sort of understood that you were talking about chips here... but then i got confused.

am i to take it that a duel core processor just spreads the load, rather than doubles the performance... same performance but can have higher drain aplications on it?

[T7RY B]

Just bought the MEDION MD 8818 Dual core. 2 Duo processor E6300. Massive spec.

Best PC I have had great peice of kit. TV tuner Remote control Windows Media centre. So many functions and a fantastic software package.

Still finding my way around it. :D

The price £534 Unbeleivable :D 3 years on site warranty for free.

ALDI special

Medion Spec Link

[lexicon]

ok ok, now i sort of understood that you were talking about chips here... but then i got confused.

am i to take it that a duel core processor just spreads the load, rather than doubles the performance... same performance but can have higher drain aplications on it?

Sort of - dual core is basically two processors in one package.

To benefit from dual cpus, you need an operating system and/or applications that are designed to be multi-threading. This means that an application can be shared across cpus (spread the load), or one app can run on one cpu while the other does something else - true multi-tasking.

Until multiple cores, multi-tasking was a misnomer - the cpu just hopped from one task to the next

[Fargo]

think i'll stick with the usual single chip for another couple of years. certainly my mutlitasking days are less and less, only really use the net for d/l's and also for media outputing via my home AV system.

abys

been looking at these babys as my next upgrade, although not for the duo chips so may get then enclosure and stick single chip stuff in..

[Parthiban]

I have a 2.8GHz Pentium D processor in my PC, and as far as I know it is essentially two 2.8Ghz Pentium 4 processors working together. As someone said earlier, not many applications actually support the use of multiple processors, so most of the time, performance will be the same as a PC with a single 2.8Ghz P4 processor in it.

However, multitasking is where there is a noticeable difference. The times when it becomes really obvious are when you are running a few things at the same time. Most commonly, when my virus check is doing its scan, I can still use the computer without any difference in speed, whereas normally that would almost totally kill use of the PC. Also, as I have a media centre PC, its useful that when the PC can be recording some TV show, I can still be using the PC to do even intensive tasks without affecting performance, or mess either task up :)

If buying now though, the core2duo is definitely the way to go as that's the all new processor, whereas the D is still using P4 processors.

[Tyger]

Multi-core processors are certainly the future. Ths is primarily down to heat issues as the high clock speeds of recent processors were producing so much heat that liquid-cooling and other nonsense was becoming prevalent. Multi-core processors can deliver more processing power with lower clock speeds and less heat production. BUT the OS you are using needs to be able to utilise these processors and the apps/games you use need to be written to use multithreading etc. or little or no speed improvement will be seen.

Top spec Macs already have twin dual-core 64-bit Xeon processors in them and Macs launched next week are having twin QUAD-core 64-bit Xeons in them. 8 processors baby! Using Mac OS X that was built from the ground up to handle 64 bit, multiprocessors and is multithreaded - not like crusty old XP!

All consumer level Macs have Core 2 duos in them, apart from the Mac mini which has a Core solo.

What is the point in having the fastest hardware on the planet if you are then going to mess it all up by installing Windows on it!??? Baffling. And you do now games run 15% SLOWER in the traincrash that is Vista don't you? Mac users have had all of the features of Vista and more for nearly 2 years now.

Classic line from Parthiban about his PC doesn't slow down at all while virus-checking! What a great use of multitasking! Umm how about using an OS that doesn't NEED virus-checking and use your multitasking OS for something WORTHWHILE!? ;)

Why do people spend so much time researching what car to buy and yet without a second thought go and buy a Windows PC? astonishing. YOU NEED TO KNOW WHAT IS OUT THERE!! And for those who think Macs are expensive - you need to be looking closer...

All Macs run the virus-free Mac OS X AND Windows (should you still want to after having used OS X!)

Wake up and smell the future people!

http://www.apple.com/getamac

http://www.apple.com/macosx

http://www.apple.com/hardware

/rant

[ColinBarber]

All Macs have dual core processors in them because they now use Intel chips and that is the direction Intel have chosen to go in. apple were never going to use older Pentium chips because of the association with PCs.

The Mac mini hasn't have a core solo for several months now, all Macs are dual core.

OSX isn't fully 64 bit, not until 10.5 which will be released in the next 3 months.

Games run slower under OSX than Windows XP. Macworld etc. have performed tests that show that.

Vista performs slower than XP because it is doing a lot more, like OSX.

Some people need to use Windows. I have several apps that are not available on OSX and some web sites will not function correctly unless you use IE, which isn't available anymore on OSX.

apple hardware isn't that more expensive than Dell, HP etc. for the same spec however apple do not make budget machines and therefore Macs are not an option for many people.

I'm not anti Mac (I own three Macs and will probably only ever buy Macs from now on) but the decision to go Mac or PC should be based on your actual requirements, PCs running Windows are a better choice for some people.

[Kazi]

The duel core processors are brilliant! I have a apple Mac G5 which was their last and latest no Intel chips and is slower than my apple Laptop which has one of the newer Intl processors despite having less Ram on opening up multiple applications.

I made a backup copy of a film on my desktop, the film was already compressed, and the running time of the film was about 2hr30. It took my G5 Desktop about 3-4hrs to rip and burn a copy.

I also made a backup of another disc which was not compressed but with the same running time, only took 30 mins to rip. Not sure how long extra it would have taken to burn but I know it would not take an additional 3 hours!

Having seen the in performance im very impressed with the new Intel chips! :D

As for OSX running slow.......never had a problem...OSX is a 64 bit operating system making full use of any 64 bit chip. The newer chip set also enables people to use an actual Windows XP OS on their Mac, not like the older chip sets that could only handle a virtual XP OS.

With the next installement of OSX, Leopard, it comes pre-installed with a program called BootCamp. Specifically for using Windows.

[Tyger]

Colin:

apple didn't use Pentium chips simply because the PowerPC chips were/are SO much better. The only reason they are using Intel now is due to heat/performance reasons.

Sorry what I meant was Core Duo. The Mac mini has Core Duo chips and the other Macs have Core 2 Duos.

OS X Tiger can run 64-bit apps in a pseudo-64-bit environment. Leopard will indeed be true 64-bit.

Macs run Windows too. ALL Windows apps therefore run on Macs. Your only choice when buying computer hardware is to limit yourself to Windows and buy a PC or buy a Mac and have 2 OS to use as well as being able to run all UNIX apps. (I am not including Linux as it will never be anything other than a curiosity unfortunately)

apple do make budget machines. It's called a Mac mini.

Your last point is redundant. Windows runs better on Mac hardware than PC hardware for the same money. Even if you want to just run Windows you should still be buying Mac hardware.

[ColinBarber]

The Mac mini isn't budget, it's quite expensive for what you get.

PowerPC chips were never better, just different. They consume vast amounts of power and IBM where never able to get the clock speeds they said they were going to achieve which forced a lot of Pros onto Windows machine because the old PowerMacs couldn't compete.

IBM also failed to deliver a mobile G5 which really limited Powerbook sales in the last couple of years.

Purchasing a Mac just to run Windows isn't a sensible option. The extra cost of XP/Vista makes it too expensive plus the limitations in hardware options mean you will always be able to get a PC cheaper than a Mac (Mac Pro is currently an execption as apple are getting a very good bulk discount on the Xeon processors at the moment).

[Tyger]

The Mac mini is expensive for what you get?

http://www.apple.com/macmini

A machine that you can run all applications and any OS on the planet a free industry leading software suite with which you can make DVDs, music and edit videos and a remote control media centre that for £399 is not value for money? I see. :duh:

The Power PC chips have always been better until the last 2 years or so. Per clock cycle they beat the hell out of any AMD or Intel chip due to the short pipelines. The reason you give as far as clock speeds are concerned and heat are the exact reasons apple switched to Intel at the point when Intel at LAST made better chips. Up until that point the PowerPC was far and away the better chip.

Purchasing ANY machine to run Windows is never a sensible option. The point is that you CAN as a necessity. apple is a BRAND and should be compared to BRANDED PCs such as Dell or HP. Build your own will always be cheaper - but in that limited market you are limiting yourself to Windows and all the compatibility issues and fun with drivers that any home-built PC comes with.

The point is the huge majority of PC users DON'T need Windows - they just THINK they do. Gamers can use OS X for everything and then just boot XP when they want to play Battlefield 2!

The extra cost of XP/Vista? Does anyone actually BUY Windows anymore - in the real world?

[Parthiban]

Although I think I'd probably buy a Mac as my next computer, why is a Mac better at running windows than a PC? I can see them being the same, but what about Mac hardware makes it better? Surely a well built PC is the same?

[Kazi]

Although I think I'd probably buy a Mac as my next computer, why is a Mac better at running windows than a PC? I can see them being the same, but what about Mac hardware makes it better? Surely a well built PC is the same?

The whole hardware of the Macs are generally better. Better mother motherboards etc etc. Also, the whole design of the Mac, the way they are built and configured inside. The use the space to optimise the perfomance of the processors. There not just slung together like most PCs. Also, the LCD screens the desktops Mac use are very impressive! Bright, sharp and vibrant colours! You wouldnt notice the difference unless you had another monitor besides the Macs to see for yourself...

[Fargo]

hmm, never thought about going the mac route, tell me something, all i want to do is mainly download films/music, output the same media to TV/AV system and wordprocess and spreadsheets, email.

obvuisouly there are word and spreadsheet software for the mac, but what of the rest.

[ColinBarber]

A well built same spec PC will run Windows the same as the Mac hardware. The Macs use standard Intel motherboard components that have been reworked to fit in a custom case and with a different BIOS.

apple don't make the LCD panels, same as any other computer manufacturer. Dell monitors are just as good but have more features and cost less. That said I have an apple 23" Cinema Display which is very nice.

The iMac 17" screen is poor. The 20" and 24" ones are good as are the notebook screens.

apple hardware is very well made and very nice to look at and use, however you pay a premium for that extra quality. Branded PCs are cheaper than apple machines because of this.

apple machines aren't the best for games because of limited graphics card options. If gaming is your primary reason for a machine then get a PC.

Yes a lot of people do buy Windows and Vista will be much more difficult to get pirate copies working.

[aido]

To be honest the apple guys have had a few teething problems since they moved to the Intel chips, I wouldn't say the motherboards are better, a lot of the time they're using reference designs from Intel, I'm sure I read that somewhere.

In fact you'll potentially find that the factory that makes the apple kit also makes laptops for other manufacturers, it's just that apple like little features that you don't see on other brands.

For example, I loved my IBM Thinkpad when I got that, it had a great little feature which was a light that you could use at night to illuminate the keyboard, and the keys each had a reflective surface which lit up.

The apple solution was a backlit keyboard, yes more expensive but it's as cool as f*ck!

Don't get me wrong like Colin I made the switch years ago, and I'm on my second Mac ready to get the third one, and I still love them, the fact that they switched to Intel was helped by the fact that Intel had a better roadmap than the PowerPC camp as well as the fact that IBM could not produce a G5 chip capable of running in a laptop, hence why you never saw a G5 laptop.

Also not really sure how much it had to do with it but IBM were focussed on three other clients for the PowerPC chips - namely Microsoft, Sony & Nintendo who all use PowerPC derivative processors in their latest and greatest consoles.

apple would have been a big customer prior to these three who will be ordering processors totalling many magnitudes higher than apple ever purchased.

I think the guys at apple realised this, and they developed OSX Intel alongside the PowerPC version since it originated if you believe the rumours so they had to have a backup plan.

It was kind of a blessing in disguise for apple when a few hackers figured out how to boot Windows on the apple hardware (which lacks a standard BIOS which was the problem) - that caused apple to rush out BootCamp which in turned opened them up to a whole new market.

I'm looking forward to seeing what they announce at Macworld Expo next week in SF, it's their 30th year so hopefully we'll see some nice things coming, I've heard of allsorts of rumours, so now it's time to see what they've got!

In hindsight it was probably a good thing that Steve Jobs parted company with apple to go to NeXT - if he hadn't of been there who knows if apple would have ever have based OSX on NeXTSTEP - BeOS was very nice for the time, great OS imho, although it never took off!

hmm, never thought about going the mac route, tell me something, all i want to do is mainly download films/music, output the same media to TV/AV system and wordprocess and spreadsheets, email.

obvuisouly there are word and spreadsheet software for the mac, but what of the rest.

I think you'd be pleasantly surprised mate :)

For browsing use Firefox, Camino or Safari, for music use iTunes, for Films use VideoLan Client (VLC) or MPlayer, as for work stuff just use MS Office 2004 on the Mac natively, and then for email just use iMail.

You get a lot of nice software bundled in, to be honest you don't need a great deal, for most people the Mac will do what they want out of the box, and you also get great photo management software, video editing software and music generation software. Heck I read somewhere that MS are planning to get a Garageband clone in the R2 release of Vista which is miles away yet!

[ColinBarber]

The Mac mini is expensive for what you get?

http://www.apple.com/macmini

A machine that you can run all applications and any OS on the planet a free industry leading software suite with which you can make DVDs, music and edit videos and a remote control media centre that for £399 is not value for money? I see. :duh:

Yes it is expensive because you have no keyboard, mouse or screen and extra memory is expensive that you cannot add yourself without voiding the warranty. For £399 you cannot make DVDs because that model only has a combo drive so the price has now gone up to £500+.

For that sort of money you can get a Dell desktop with the same processor, more memory, faster and larger hard disk, a faster DVD drive, better graphics card, keyboard, mouse, a better warranty and a 19" monitor. Plus the whole system is upgradable.

I had a Core Duo Mac mini for a while, it is a nice machine but the graphics let it down and I decided to replace it with an iMac instead.

My whole point is apple products are very nice but they are not cheap, you pay extra for the design and the excellent software that comes as standard. They are the Lexus of the computer industry.

Most people on this forum have chosen to pay extra for a vehicle with a bit more quality and uniqueness, otherwise we would all be posting on a Ford forum.

[Fargo]

hmm just been looking at gthe mac site, have to agree with colin, looks good but for the money....nah,,,

[Tyger]

Fargo: What you have to realise is - it's not about the hardware it's about the software and apps.

The premium you pay for using Mac OS X and the integrated iLife software is WELL worth it.

You cannot understand this until you have used it. All you need to do is have someone FAMILIAR with OS X give you a hands-on demo of how it looks/feels and works and you will want one. Simple.

I know of no one who has bought a Mac and ever chosen to buy a PC ever again.

Mark my words - if the next computer you buy isn't a Mac the NEXT one will be.

I don't have the energy or time to explain the many reasons for this or what is happning out there - but believe me when I say people will look back at 2006/2007/2008 and will see it as the time the Mac Came Back!

Colin: You are absolutely right about the DVD burning - silly of me. But like I said above - so what about the Dell? You have to use Windows. I would rather use the slowest Mac ever built running OS X than the fastes PC running Windows - SERIOUSly.

I like your Lexus analogy - so true. And so it suprises me more that Fargo would not want the best computing experience momney can buy when he chose such a nice car.

[Kazi]

A well built same spec PC will run Windows the same as the Mac hardware. The Macs use standard Intel motherboard components that have been reworked to fit in a custom case and with a different BIOS.

Apple don't make the LCD panels, same as any other computer manufacturer. Dell monitors are just as good but have more features and cost less. That said I have an Apple 23" Cinema Display which is very nice.

The iMac 17" screen is poor. The 20" and 24" ones are good as are the notebook screens.

Apple hardware is very well made and very nice to look at and use, however you pay a premium for that extra quality. Branded PCs are cheaper than Apple machines because of this.

Apple machines aren't the best for games because of limited graphics card options. If gaming is your primary reason for a machine then get a PC.

Yes a lot of people do buy Windows and Vista will be much more difficult to get pirate copies working.

No offence, but my MacBook screen is not in the same league as my desktop monitor......neither are the other three PC monitors in my house.....one of which is samsung, the other Philips....

Yes, the iMacs are limited in graphics card options, but get the Mac Pro (the daddy).....and the spec of that wipes the floor with any custom built PC! Dell are not even in the same league. Like crowing with the chickens as Mac flys with the eagles.... :P

You're other point of Windows working just as well as a Mac machine with Windows....even if that is true.....Mac can do both.....try to get a PC to do a Mac application and all you get is the Hard drive throw fits....

Just had to edited this, 100% true with what Tyger is saying. You can't possibly understand what we are talking about until you experience one, not only on a demo but everyday use.

All this ******* about Macs having no software...blah blah....its all talk from PC users who havent a clue. If anything their is more software out their as Mac OSX is an open platform. Thousands of Freeware out their for you to use, experience and enjoy!

The other perception about Macs being expensive......behave.....iLife is everything a basic user needs to make web sites, word process, spreadsheets etc etc.....what does a PC come with.....? Windows paint and a calculator......

Edited January 4, 2007 by Kazi

[aido]

Actually OSX Intel has been hacked to run natively on standard PC's!

It does vary from manufacturer but compare a premium screen from a good vendor to those from apple and you won't really see a difference, in fact I think the 30" displays from apple and Dell both use the same LCD panel which is what Colin meant.

I've also got an apple Cinema Screen 22" at home which I bought years ago and still looks amazing now!

As for the specs, hate to say it, as yes I love the Macs, but compare it to some of the kit I work with and it makes the apple stuff look like toys!

I'm just happy in the knowledge that when I get home I've got the Mac to use and don't have to look at the start menu or the Windows command prompt any more :)

@ Kazi, it doesn't matter how much software is out there, it's the quality that counts anyway :)