Almost correct. In any event, Windows has to allocate "CPU time" to each application in order that it remains as current as possible. (And as in your example you were "running virus scan only" the CPU would devote all of its time to that. But if you want to surf the web while virus scanning, the CPU would allocate time for both as best it could determine... actually making each run slower than if it were the only app running. With C2D, both should run at full speed as there would be a "core" for each app. But then if you wanted to do virus scan, burn a CD, and surf the web at the same time, the CPU cores would have to allocate time as best they could to accomplish all three tasks more or less concurrently). With 2 cores, there are more resources to accomplish all tasks. Plus, of course, the future potential to run multi-threaded apps faster. The best use of C2D so far is multi-tasking... of which trading setups are a prime example.
I'm confused. Is a P dual-core, 2 processors? Is a C2 Duo, 2 processors, and better than the PDC2 (above) Then, what' s a C2 Quad... 4 processors? C2 Extreme... 36 processors? ...WTF? Worse than those razors with 14 blades.
"Dual processor" means 2 separate CPUs on one mobo. "Dual Core", means 1 CPU with 2 separate cores... likely sharing the cache somehow. "Quad Core" is 1 CPU with 4 cores. Best bang for the buck performance right now is in a Core 2 Duo (E8200-E8600).. but the slower quad cores... (like Q9300) are not that much more expensive. The fastest C2Ds are about the same speed overall in benchmark tests as the slower quads...
Yes, but when a C2D processor is designated as 3.4G then isn't that a designation of the sum of the two cores? Meaning that each core only has 1.7G processing capability?
Nope, the number provided with the C2D processors is the clock speed at which both (or all four) processors run at. Although Intel did get the pentium 4 processors to run at much higher speeds (up to 4 GHz I believe) than the C2D processors. AMD on the other hand, seem to label their processors with a relative performance number. Such as a 2.4 GHz dual core is an X2 4800, while the 2.4 GHz quad core is an X4 9750. So I guess it should better than twice as fast...
Bstay, I have a trusty old Dell 8300 Dimension as my back-up to my Dell T3400 Precision Workstation. I have Windows XP Home on it and 1 Gig of RAM and a bigger power supply unit ( PC Power & Cooling Silencer 410 ). It runs great! I would suggest that you stay with what you have, and simply increase your memory from 512k to 1 or 2 Gigs. That's where you will get your biggest bang for the buck. And whatever you do, STAY AWAY from any kind of Norton Anti-Virus!
Don't be put off by the fact that the C2Ds run at slower clock speed than the prior P4s. The C2Ds are faster... even when their "Ghz" is lower, in most cases.. because they get more work out of each clock cycle. In the evolution of the C2D, the origianl E4xxx and E6xxx lines have been or are in the process of being replaced by the E8xxx line. So now there is the E2xxx (economy) line, the E8xxx main stsream line... which is plenty fast, and Qxxxx quads, which are faster yet (but require more power and disperse more heart). For the money, they are all quite good.
If all you want is a better running pc the best thing is just to increase the memory to 1 or preferably 2 G. Also, reformatting the disk and installing everything cleanly will generally improve operations and your perception of them. But a new pc is fun. Vista is OK if you turn all the eye candy off or have a lot of grunt and at least 2G of ram.
Can you guys point me to an easy to understand for the layman type website for a re-format*? I've never done it and would like to try. It's been a few years since I've had this thing, so I guess it's due. Thx * I thought you needed an XP disk for that? Dell never shipped one with the unit.