AMD Dual Core CPU's

[Peter Lieverdink]

Ed Fletcher wrote:
> You're right about the price but look at the clock speeds.  The AMD 64
> X2 3800+ runs at 2 GHz.  The AMD 64 3800+ runs at 2.4 GHz.  That's a
> sizable difference.  To get an X2 at 2.4 GHz, you have to step up to
> the 4200+, which is almost double the price.
> 
> I'm still going to go with an AMD 64, but I think that I'll stick to
> the single core.  Too much money and not enough benefit yet for the
> dual core.
> 
> Thanks,
> Ed

4GHz of joy vs 2.4GHz. Hmmm.

I suppose it mainly depends on how you plan to use it. On a Linux box 
where you run a lot of concurrent apps (evolution, office, firefox, 
vmware, whatever) I expect a 2GHz dual-core will give you, the end user, 
a far better experience than a single core 2.4GHz.

On an x2, whenever you have an app that eats a lot of cpu time, you 
still have the other core to run any other app that needs it at full 
speed. Yum :-)  In most cases (for office/web/mail) you won't notice 
much of a difference between 2 and 2.4GHz, but you will notice a large 
difference between a single-core and dual-core box when you try to push 
the machine a bit.

That said, keep in mind that 90% of the time your cpu will be idling at 
1GHz (powernowd) because all apps are waiting for user input or some 
alarm to perform their tasks anyway.

- P.
(who *is* going to go x2 soon)