neoinoakleys

I am getting alot of mixed information about Dual Core. I am in the market for a new laptop, and this time I want to do things right. I currently have a Sony PCG-GRT260G, which I am starting to feel the limitations on. I am a multi-media developer. My day consists for working in the Adobe/Macromedia suite of products, video work and of course gaming (half-Life2, Battlefield, Unreal and C&C are my weaknesses). I am on the road ALOT at client locations, so a laptop/desktop replacement is a must for me.

I have been reading that until the new Windows Vista comes out, there is nothing that really harnesses the power of dual core, is that true?

I understand that alot of newer games are said to be starting to take advantage of dual core, however is that really a good reason to spend the extra cash?

Keep in mind that I buy new machinery every 1-2 years. I have never kept a laptop longer than that. I understand that I need more power than most end-users, but since I upgrade so often, is it really necessary to make the leap now, or should I wait?

So, basically, what I need to know is is there really a compelling reason to go dual core this early in the game, or should I stick with a powerful single core processors until the technology is fully supported, and spend my money instead on more RAM?

If you believe I should make the leap to Dual core now, please tell me which of the following processors you would recommend, and why?

AMD Athlon™ 64 FX-60 with HyperTransport and Dual Core Technology [+$1,170 or $36/mo.]
AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 4800+ with HyperTransport and Dual Core Technology [+$620 or $19/mo.]
AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 4400+ with HyperTransport and Dual Core Technology [+$420 or $13/mo.]
AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 4200+ with HyperTransport and Dual Core Technology [+$260 or $8/mo.]


If you think I should wait, please recommend one of the following single core processors, and tell me why...

AMD Athlon™ 64 3800+ with HyperTransport Technology [+$140 or $5/mo.]
AMD Athlon™ 64 3200+ with HyperTransport Technology


I think I have provided as much information as I can, let me know if you need any more information...

__________________
It's My Duty to Please That Booty!!

BulletCatcher

While there may not be many games that take advantage of dual core at the moment, your multimedia tasks should see a healthy performance increase as most mainsteam multimedia applications (especially Adobe products) are dual core compatible out of the box.

I have a AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ and though I don't do a lot of serious multimedia apps I have seen a huge decrease in the time it takes to incode a home movie to DVD using Adobe Premier and load times and conversions are quicker in Photoshop. To test whether this speed increase was due to dual core or just the fact the CPU was faster than my old one I disabled the second core while running the apps and tested again. Without the second core everything took just about as long as my old CPU. Re-enabled the second core and was back to zipping along.

As for gaming, I have not really seen where having a dual core has made much of a difference other than some games have problems running and I have to disable the second core to correct the problems but this has only happened to maybe 3 games out of the 40 - 50 I've tried since upgrading so it doesn't appear to be a major issue. There are supposedly several upcoming games that should take full advantage of the second core. At the same time though I have heard that it is also very difficult to program dual core support for interactive applications such as games as opposed to static apps like Photoshop so how widespread the support becomes, at least in the next year or two, is anyone's guess.

Personally I'd say go ahead with the dual core. They are not much more expensive than a decent single core CPU and since you say you run multimedia apps you will see a benefit from having the second core. Gamingwise you probably won't notice much of a difference but it won't negativly affect you either other than possibly having a few games that you'll need to disable the second core to play.

Best bang for your buck, the X2 4200+. Solid performance and for the $100+ you save over the 4400+ all you give up is 200Mhz and 512k of level 2 cache memory. Yes the 512k can make a noticible difference in some cases but not enough to warrent the extra cost in my opinion.

cyrnel

The only reason not to get dual-core for a workstation system is because you found a screaming deal on a closeout single-core.

The argument about software not taking advantage of dual-core is a sorry analog of the anti 64-bit arguments. Dual-core is a completely different technology. There's no basis for waiting besides price. Perhaps, if you only run one single-threaded application, and never try to do something else at the same time, then you may not see a benefit from dual core. (Single-threaded benchmarks can make it look this way.) But I don't see users besides absolute beginners who use their systems that way. For multimedia apps and a desktop replacement dual-core is a no-brainer.

As for which to buy, pick your point on the curve. You'll find any of the dual cores will be much better than the single if you load up and use a combination of apps. I would peak at the 4800 given the FX60 price jump. Just be sure to buy enough memory. Another core won't help your system page to disk any faster. Put another way, not having enough memory means twice as many cores are waiting for the disk I/O so they can get some work done.

__________________
There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195

Locke7

I'd have to agree with the call to move to dual core. Specially for your multimedia/graphics needs. Like the last poster said, any programs that are multithreaded will spawn processes on both, and then there is the extra speed you'll get when running multiple programs at the same time.

This is the way of the future, the only reason to wait would be cost, which is always the case with technology. Yeah stuff next year will be a fraction of the cost, but next year something better/faster will be available for you to drool at.

Nimetic

I dunno about your pricing, but I'm seeing AMD Athlon 3800s here selling - with dual core costing only $20 more. In that case I'd go for it.

In a laptop - I'm not sure. I didn't think that AMD had the same power reduction stuff as Intel (but I also got the impression that they didn't need it as much). Anyways... for myself, I really only use a laptop plugged in to mains anyway.

neoinoakleys

Thanks for all the great responses. It gave me alot to think about. I am think I am going to make the leap into dual core. Not quite sure which one yet.

Nimetic, power is never really an issue with me, as I don't really use my computer until I can plug in somewhere.

__________________
It's My Duty to Please That Booty!!

YaWhateva

I would say buy a MacBook Pro and Dual Boot Windows XP on it. I love this machine so much and I never thought I would say that about a Mac. The Dual Boot is rumored to work with Vista as well.

__________________
“If the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush administration again.” - Bill O'Reilly

"This is my United States of Whateva!"