Tweet
I remember a post that asked about the difference in 64 bit and dual core PCs and this article came. I did a quick search but didn't fine the post so I just started a new. The following is from USA Today and it kind of sounds like a add for PC but there is information there that I (as a newbe in PCs found of interest) It's a long piece but informative:
Dual-core chips deliver PC performance boost
By Matthew, Fordahl, The Associated Press
Personal computer shoppers once could walk into a local electronics store or visit a Web site, glance at the speed of a PC's processor and immediately get a sense of how it stacked up against the competition. Not anymore.
Today, the capabilities of the chips that are the brains of PCs tend to be obscured by meaningless model numbers and confusing technical jargon. The problem is that a boost in frequency — measured in gigahertz — no longer produces the results it once did.
Thankfully, chipmakers Intel Corp. and Advanced Micro Devices Inc. now offer a processor technology that's easily explained and whose benefits are tangible. Its name — dual core — is almost self-explanatory.
The processors work on the theory that two heads are better than one.
Rather than ratchet up the horsepower, the chips split the work between two computing engines on the same die. They can handle more tasks at the same time while keeping a lid on the electricity they guzzle and leak as heat.
I borrowed two PCs — a Dell Dimension 9100 running Intel's dual-core Pentium D 840 and an Alienware Aurora 7500 based on AMD's dual-core Athlon 64 X2 4800+ chips. Both outperformed my home-built Pentium 4 by a long shot.
Even though both are dual-core systems, there are performance and price differences. The AMD-based PC felt faster than the Intel-based Dell, and it did slightly better in my tests. But the Alienware also cost $3,447 as configured — about $1,200 more than the Dell's $2,225 price tag. (Prices don't include options like speakers or the display.)
In the strongest argument yet that the megahertz race is over, the Alienware's processor runs at 2.4 GHz while the Dell's chip clocks in at 3.2 GHz. Both systems were configured with a gigabyte of memory.
Both booted up in a little more than 30 seconds and were the most responsive Windows-based PCs I've ever used. Still, these machines are overkill if you're using them just for word processing, Web surfing and e-mail.
The greatest benefits are seen when they're running software designed to take advantage of two processing engines or when running multiple programs are running at the same time.
In fact, most PC users multitask without knowing it. Even if you work in one program, you've still got a handful of others, such as antivirus sentinels, running in the background.
To put some stress on the dual-core systems, I decided to catch up on transferring footage from my camcorder to a DVD. I used Adobe Premiere Elements, which is optimized for multiprocessor systems, to create a 60-minute DVD.
On my 2.8-GHz Pentium 4, it took nearly two hours to convert the raw footage into a format readable by a DVD player. During that time, the machine was worthless for any other task.
By comparison, transcoding took just 54 minutes on the AMD-based Alienware system and 67 minutes on the Intel-based Dell. It's still a long time, but there are other dual-core benefits to take into account.
When I ran the same test a second time, I didn't let the PCs churn away on their own. Instead, I launched several applications to see if the dual-core systems could juggle multiple applications without bogging down.
The results were quite impressive on both systems.
I could open up Microsoft Office's Word, Excel spreadsheet and Access database programs. There was barely a noticeable delay as I typed in Word. I browsed music in iTunes with no sluggishness.
And, obviously, the processor isn't the only contributor to performance. The Dell, for instance, was able to burn a DVD a few minutes faster than the Alienware. That shaved a few minutes from the project.
Beyond the chips, both systems are impressively designed and fully decked out, which isn't surprising given the price. (Both AMD and Intel are cascading dual-core technology across their product lines. Prices will drop.)
The Alienware Aurora 7500, in keeping with the company's theme, looks like a prop from a space-invasion flick. One glows on its front cover. Oh, and it runs Windows XP Professional.
The Aurora has about 160 gigabytes of disk storage, shared seamlessly among two drives. It's also got two Nvidia GeForce 6800 graphics cards, a Creative Audigy 2 ZS sound card and an NEC CD/DVC burner.
By contrast, the Dell Dimension 9100 looks more like a traditional PC thought it certainly doesn't sound like one. The silver, black and white box, is impressively quiet — practically not noticeable when turned on.
That makes it a particularly strong contender for the living room, where you'd rather hear music and movies than the low hum of a cooling fan. It ships with Microsoft's Windows XP Media Center Edition.
The Dell has about 300 gigabytes of hard drive storage, an ATI Radeon X850XT graphics card and two optical drives, including a DVD burner.
Meanwhile, chip makers continue to promise faster, better and cheaper chips while sniping at each other in the marketplace and the courtroom. And it's likely neither will stop at two cores.
Both have promised four-core chips in 2007.
By then, you might just need the processing power to decipher their model numbers and marketing claims.
Dual-core chips deliver PC performance boost
By Matthew, Fordahl, The Associated Press
Personal computer shoppers once could walk into a local electronics store or visit a Web site, glance at the speed of a PC's processor and immediately get a sense of how it stacked up against the competition. Not anymore.
Today, the capabilities of the chips that are the brains of PCs tend to be obscured by meaningless model numbers and confusing technical jargon. The problem is that a boost in frequency — measured in gigahertz — no longer produces the results it once did.
Thankfully, chipmakers Intel Corp. and Advanced Micro Devices Inc. now offer a processor technology that's easily explained and whose benefits are tangible. Its name — dual core — is almost self-explanatory.
The processors work on the theory that two heads are better than one.
Rather than ratchet up the horsepower, the chips split the work between two computing engines on the same die. They can handle more tasks at the same time while keeping a lid on the electricity they guzzle and leak as heat.
I borrowed two PCs — a Dell Dimension 9100 running Intel's dual-core Pentium D 840 and an Alienware Aurora 7500 based on AMD's dual-core Athlon 64 X2 4800+ chips. Both outperformed my home-built Pentium 4 by a long shot.
Even though both are dual-core systems, there are performance and price differences. The AMD-based PC felt faster than the Intel-based Dell, and it did slightly better in my tests. But the Alienware also cost $3,447 as configured — about $1,200 more than the Dell's $2,225 price tag. (Prices don't include options like speakers or the display.)
In the strongest argument yet that the megahertz race is over, the Alienware's processor runs at 2.4 GHz while the Dell's chip clocks in at 3.2 GHz. Both systems were configured with a gigabyte of memory.
Both booted up in a little more than 30 seconds and were the most responsive Windows-based PCs I've ever used. Still, these machines are overkill if you're using them just for word processing, Web surfing and e-mail.
The greatest benefits are seen when they're running software designed to take advantage of two processing engines or when running multiple programs are running at the same time.
In fact, most PC users multitask without knowing it. Even if you work in one program, you've still got a handful of others, such as antivirus sentinels, running in the background.
To put some stress on the dual-core systems, I decided to catch up on transferring footage from my camcorder to a DVD. I used Adobe Premiere Elements, which is optimized for multiprocessor systems, to create a 60-minute DVD.
On my 2.8-GHz Pentium 4, it took nearly two hours to convert the raw footage into a format readable by a DVD player. During that time, the machine was worthless for any other task.
By comparison, transcoding took just 54 minutes on the AMD-based Alienware system and 67 minutes on the Intel-based Dell. It's still a long time, but there are other dual-core benefits to take into account.
When I ran the same test a second time, I didn't let the PCs churn away on their own. Instead, I launched several applications to see if the dual-core systems could juggle multiple applications without bogging down.
The results were quite impressive on both systems.
I could open up Microsoft Office's Word, Excel spreadsheet and Access database programs. There was barely a noticeable delay as I typed in Word. I browsed music in iTunes with no sluggishness.
And, obviously, the processor isn't the only contributor to performance. The Dell, for instance, was able to burn a DVD a few minutes faster than the Alienware. That shaved a few minutes from the project.
Beyond the chips, both systems are impressively designed and fully decked out, which isn't surprising given the price. (Both AMD and Intel are cascading dual-core technology across their product lines. Prices will drop.)
The Alienware Aurora 7500, in keeping with the company's theme, looks like a prop from a space-invasion flick. One glows on its front cover. Oh, and it runs Windows XP Professional.
The Aurora has about 160 gigabytes of disk storage, shared seamlessly among two drives. It's also got two Nvidia GeForce 6800 graphics cards, a Creative Audigy 2 ZS sound card and an NEC CD/DVC burner.
By contrast, the Dell Dimension 9100 looks more like a traditional PC thought it certainly doesn't sound like one. The silver, black and white box, is impressively quiet — practically not noticeable when turned on.
That makes it a particularly strong contender for the living room, where you'd rather hear music and movies than the low hum of a cooling fan. It ships with Microsoft's Windows XP Media Center Edition.
The Dell has about 300 gigabytes of hard drive storage, an ATI Radeon X850XT graphics card and two optical drives, including a DVD burner.
Meanwhile, chip makers continue to promise faster, better and cheaper chips while sniping at each other in the marketplace and the courtroom. And it's likely neither will stop at two cores.
Both have promised four-core chips in 2007.
By then, you might just need the processing power to decipher their model numbers and marketing claims.
Comment