I see your both serious ...
I'll beg to differ and leave it at that.
I hope those with a brain listen to my advice and not yours when upgrading or purchasing a new PC to cope with new (and existing) software ...

I think too many of u guys are missing the point that sanderson was trying to get across. What he was basicly saying is that for the average computer user, where the market is aimed at, u don't need to feel the pressure into rushing out and grabbing a dual-core or quad-core processor when right now most like u won't be able to tell or see the difference. Obvisously like most products there are times when u need that dual or quad core processor, but there are also those people that say hey look theres a new chip out there thats getting all of the press, i think i need to go get one, when in reality the only thing u've done is spend more money and gotten better bragging rights.

not to mock you bob but "...says the guy with an x2" and "dual core processor" writen all over it.

does anybody "really" need dual/ multi core? hardly anybody. but if you want to take it that far, then does anybody really need a 2ghz or 3ghz cpu? minimum requirements for xp are around 500mhz. and joe blow user could work with that and a 1ghz cpu would be a big enhancement.
i certainly don't want take a step back into those times and we wouldn't be where we are if we would only invent things that we absolutly need.

programs, applications and users are becoming more and more demanding. so does the need for supporting hardware. just about everybody at home or work does some typ of multitasking at some point or another. these task can be greatly enhanced with dual/ multi core technology, which increases productivity and saves time. not only at work but at home as well.

is the time right for dual core, certainly. is the time right for multi core, maybe not quiet yet but if we never start then we will never get there.

extract out of this articel
http://www.bit-tech.net/columns/2006/11/05/In_defence_of_multi_core/1.html


now, i am not that blunt but you get the point.

bot said:

Good point. You would not be able to see any difference between an AMD Duron 1Ghz and a Core Duo when running MOST Windows XP tasks. (with the exception of gaming, editing movies/ pictures ect.)

The only real users who NEED high frequency's are gamers/ power users. The majority of computer users are neither.

I don't even think there has to be an argument for this at all!

The point is if you need it, you buy it!!!! Why is that so hard to comprehend with some people? Stop debating whether having multiple cores is useful because they are to some but they aren't to others!

I have a freakin' Celeron D and it works like a champ. BUT, do I use it for any multitasking? NO. If I did, I would upgrade but until then there is no point!!!!

Am I getting the point across yet? I'm so tired of seeing these multiple core battles. If this is just for gaming then don't even bother talking because games now are MOSTLY single-thread.

Yes, the Intel Core 2 Duo is nice, and yes it is faster than the Intel Pentium D series, BUT, if you aren't multitasking and it isn't in your budget, you don't need to get it!!!!

Now that the C2D has been out for awhile, I'm wondering if people agree that its well worth the upgrade from a single core CPU.

The 6300 is currently $50AUD cheaper (at least from our suppliers) than we paid for a 3.0GHz single core 6 months ago.The 6400 is about equal to what we were paying for the 3.0GHz.

My own experience is that the C2D is much faster at everything than the single core or dual cores were. My current system blew my 10,400 3dmark05 score out of the water. I was soo proud of that 805D @ 4.1GHz. The 6400 C2D easily breaks the 12,000 mark. Not a 3dmark fan? (yea, its mostly a video card benchmark.. but the rest of the components are still the same so the entire difference in the score was from the CPU.) How about going from 4900 points on PCmark05 to a whopping 7905!

So benchmarks aren't your thing? I see the performance difference every day. Whether I'm waiting for my 2 hour AVG scan to finish or installing a new program, the C2D is much faster. If I multi-task, which I've been known to do often, the difference is like night/day.

It really doesn't matter how many threads a programs uses. The C2Ds blow away a single core CPU and even the dual cores.

IMO the original article was just plain wrong about them not being worth the upgrade. Who agrees/disagrees?