pmsl who said it would make burning dvds quicker? cba to read

The ones that get me are the Dell ads. 'With this latest dual core processor you can surf the internet and run a virus scan at the same time!'

Like you cant do those at the same time on a single core one? :lol:.

aye, that would just be dependent on the speed of your drive, unless you had like an old 486 before that was severly limiting it :lol:

A dual core processor does not making burning DVDs faster.

I got a new dual core pc, dual 2.6's, and the running speed is fk loads faster than my old 3.2 ghz

Burning a dvd takes 8 mins

Dual core for the win...tried burning 2 dvds at once and maxed out my fan though, 1500rpm :P fun noises

quote:

---

Originally posted by drunkenfool
I got two graphs, but strangely it looks like im using 50% of both when running UD cancer research, and not 100% of one and 0 of the other.

---

Ive got dual core and its ace for me at the moment, i'm writing a technology report and have open, 3dsmax which is rendering most of the time, photoshop, indesign, a couple of word docs few folders full of pics and media player, not noticing any slow down :cool:

Nice one, just ripping my first DVD (Compressing it to AVI) and its using 100% of the processor power, seems to be quicker than before!

nope, regualr winxp pro. My flatmate has a copy of 64bit xp but i heard there were a few driver issues so i was just goin to wait till SP1 comes out for vista then make the swap!

your on a 64bit OS ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulW
what version of windows are you using??

check taskmanager (performance) make sure you see 2 graphs (1 for each core) if not it could need enabling in the BIOS, or if your running XP Home, it wont work properly...

---

If you using UD (for your cancer research program) then there supposedly a dual core supporting version in the works. Decompressing files uses hardly any CPU time at all (completely limited by hard drive speed), compressing files does use alot of cpu though and it much faster with a dual core processing (in winrar at least). Also of up coming games are also planning on using dual core processors, using the second core to things like physics processing and such. Just with every day things you wont notice much difference no, but dual core is the future and you made the right choice buying one.

Also, XP home works 100% fine for dual core processors, Home doesnt support multiple sockets but does supports dual cores in one socket, so thats fine.

what version of windows are you using??

check taskmanager (performance) make sure you see 2 graphs (1 for each core) if not it could need enabling in the BIOS, or if your running XP Home, it wont work properly...

no a same spec single core will be no faster. just when you do need the extra power its there, like VTEC

how come that can use both cores but the data crunching thing for cancer research cant? Is it just due to the individual program? Would i find converting DVD to AVI faster now with the right program?

yes kinda.

Things where you really notice the difference is rendering etc in 3d modelling programs.

So for doing a single CPU intensive task I would have been better off with a single core? :(

yep its all about multitasking

these processors really come into their own during multi tasking, since using my dual core athlon for Photshop and dreamweaver and about 3 other progs it really makes the difference.

Dont forget dual core hasnt been out that long really and software companies are still tying to develop programs/drivers for new 64 bit.

Since upgrading from a 4000+ single core to 5000+ dual core and faster ram, i was expecting to see a noticable difference in speed, but im not exactly blown away by it. Is this something to do with only one of the cores being used instead of both on certain programs? Using WinRar to split 700mb video files ready for uploading doesnt seem to be much/any quicker, and i know the Cancer research screensaver program I use can only utilise one of the processor cores (unless you mess around with virtual machine apparently, but i dont know anything about that). Do you really need a 64bit OS to make the best of the processor power?

[Edited on 03-03-2007 by drunkenfool]