Posts
Warrior
will amd triple core be more effective than intel core 2 duo
Answer
The AMD Phenom II X3 720 (2.8 GHz) is currently the same price as the Intel Core 2 Duo E7500 (2.93 GHz).
Whether the X3 720 is "more effective" than the E7500 depends on whether you're running multi-threaded programs which can take advantage of the third core.
In single-threaded programs, the E7500 is generally faster, roughly 6%-7% faster in general processing, and as much as 10%-15% faster in games.
However, in some CPU intensive, multi-threaded programs --programs which make full use of the third core --the X3 720 can see a 20%-30% advantage.
So, you have to think about which programs you primarily run. If you use the computer for gaming, then you're better off with the Intel Core 2 Duo, that is, unless you know for certain one or more of your favorite games are multi-threaded (examples being GTA4, SIMS 3, and some 3D shooter warfare type games). For a general purpose computer, with less gaming, either CPU could work well. The X3 720 would work well enough generally, and the third core would give a noticeable boost on the occasional multi-threaded tasks, like WinRAR, video encoding, anti-virus scanners, etc.
However, for most users, running most programs, the comparison between the AMD X3 720 and the Intel E7500 favors the Intel processor a little.
Also, if you decide you really do run multi-threaded programs --for video encoding, 3D rendering programs, folding@home, certain high-end games, whatever --then you probably should be looking at a Phenom II X4 anyway, not the X3. (There's now a 95W version of a Phenom II X4 945 3.0 GHz that looks pretty good, considering it's the same price as an Intel E8400 3.0 GHz.)
The AMD Phenom II X3 720 (2.8 GHz) is currently the same price as the Intel Core 2 Duo E7500 (2.93 GHz).
Whether the X3 720 is "more effective" than the E7500 depends on whether you're running multi-threaded programs which can take advantage of the third core.
In single-threaded programs, the E7500 is generally faster, roughly 6%-7% faster in general processing, and as much as 10%-15% faster in games.
However, in some CPU intensive, multi-threaded programs --programs which make full use of the third core --the X3 720 can see a 20%-30% advantage.
So, you have to think about which programs you primarily run. If you use the computer for gaming, then you're better off with the Intel Core 2 Duo, that is, unless you know for certain one or more of your favorite games are multi-threaded (examples being GTA4, SIMS 3, and some 3D shooter warfare type games). For a general purpose computer, with less gaming, either CPU could work well. The X3 720 would work well enough generally, and the third core would give a noticeable boost on the occasional multi-threaded tasks, like WinRAR, video encoding, anti-virus scanners, etc.
However, for most users, running most programs, the comparison between the AMD X3 720 and the Intel E7500 favors the Intel processor a little.
Also, if you decide you really do run multi-threaded programs --for video encoding, 3D rendering programs, folding@home, certain high-end games, whatever --then you probably should be looking at a Phenom II X4 anyway, not the X3. (There's now a 95W version of a Phenom II X4 945 3.0 GHz that looks pretty good, considering it's the same price as an Intel E8400 3.0 GHz.)
Which of these 2 laptops is the best i really want both ?
Lee!
This is the windows one its fantastic and has blu-ray (£799).
http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/5080331/Trail/searchtext%3EHP+LAPTOP.htm
This is the apple macbook which doesn't compare in specs but there must be a reason why people by them(£829).
http://store.apple.com/uk/browse/home/shop_mac/family/macbook
Thanks for the help any answers are appreciated because i dont want to buy the wrong laptop at this price. I'm currently using Windows vista and its good but i wouldn't mind going to Mac but i do use msn messenger alot and im not sure how well it works.
Answer
<sigh> Mac fanatics truly have the least computer knowledge, in comparison to the Linux & Windows fanatics.
Having the blu-ray drive shouldn't be a good reason for purchasing the computer unless you really need the extra storage. The discs are expensive, and are harder to find. I mean, take a look at DVD discs. There are DVD writers nowadays which can write DVDs faster than 16x (write-once) and 4x (re-writable), yet stores usually only sell 16x and 4x discs.
As far as viruses & trojans go on the Mac, it is true that you might not encounter one (or one that can actually do some damaga). HOWEVER, that does not mean that it is bulletproof. Linux isn't bulletproof either. If I was given an Assembler & the programming information for the Mac, I could easily write some really nice destructive trojans & viruses for it - if I wanted to. (People who write malware should be shot.) Deployment would be easy, because Mac users download copyrighted software via point-to-point networks just like Windows users.
(The biggest problem with Windows users is that they use the Administrator account exclusively, rather than using a seperate regular account for day-to-day work. Even if a virus scanner finds something, most malware won't be able to install without administrator access.)
The Mac has a better operating system, but it does not have the same amount of hardware & software available.
If you buy a Mac, then you have to spend time getting used to the new OS, though it shouldn't take too long.
You can run most regular Windows programs with a Windows emulator (though the programs run slower) and I don't think that you you'll have any problems with MSN messenger.
On the other hand:
You're already familiar and happy with Vista, which is significantly worse (performance & compatibility with older software) than the older XP, so that's a plus. The Vista laptop has a larger screen, and for the most part has more bang for the buck (or in your case, British pound <grin>).
Of course, if you don't play 3D games and don't use any specialty software, then you can always install Linux on the laptop. You can try out a Linux distribution for free by downloading a Live CD image and burning it to a CD. The Live CD doesn't write anything to your hard drive, so you can try out Linux without disturbing anything on your computer.
All 3 operating systems have enough software for regular work like word processing, video software, etc.
So, it comes down to what you're already comfortable with, and hardware features. I guess that means the Vista computer, and you always have the option of using Linux. Heck, you can have both Linux and Vista on your hard drive, or even boot Linux from from a flash drive when you want to use it.
<sigh> Mac fanatics truly have the least computer knowledge, in comparison to the Linux & Windows fanatics.
Having the blu-ray drive shouldn't be a good reason for purchasing the computer unless you really need the extra storage. The discs are expensive, and are harder to find. I mean, take a look at DVD discs. There are DVD writers nowadays which can write DVDs faster than 16x (write-once) and 4x (re-writable), yet stores usually only sell 16x and 4x discs.
As far as viruses & trojans go on the Mac, it is true that you might not encounter one (or one that can actually do some damaga). HOWEVER, that does not mean that it is bulletproof. Linux isn't bulletproof either. If I was given an Assembler & the programming information for the Mac, I could easily write some really nice destructive trojans & viruses for it - if I wanted to. (People who write malware should be shot.) Deployment would be easy, because Mac users download copyrighted software via point-to-point networks just like Windows users.
(The biggest problem with Windows users is that they use the Administrator account exclusively, rather than using a seperate regular account for day-to-day work. Even if a virus scanner finds something, most malware won't be able to install without administrator access.)
The Mac has a better operating system, but it does not have the same amount of hardware & software available.
If you buy a Mac, then you have to spend time getting used to the new OS, though it shouldn't take too long.
You can run most regular Windows programs with a Windows emulator (though the programs run slower) and I don't think that you you'll have any problems with MSN messenger.
On the other hand:
You're already familiar and happy with Vista, which is significantly worse (performance & compatibility with older software) than the older XP, so that's a plus. The Vista laptop has a larger screen, and for the most part has more bang for the buck (or in your case, British pound <grin>).
Of course, if you don't play 3D games and don't use any specialty software, then you can always install Linux on the laptop. You can try out a Linux distribution for free by downloading a Live CD image and burning it to a CD. The Live CD doesn't write anything to your hard drive, so you can try out Linux without disturbing anything on your computer.
All 3 operating systems have enough software for regular work like word processing, video software, etc.
So, it comes down to what you're already comfortable with, and hardware features. I guess that means the Vista computer, and you always have the option of using Linux. Heck, you can have both Linux and Vista on your hard drive, or even boot Linux from from a flash drive when you want to use it.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Title Post: amd 3 cores vs intel 2 cores?
Rating: 100% based on 99998 ratings. 5 user reviews.
Author: Yukie
Thanks For Coming To My Blog
Rating: 100% based on 99998 ratings. 5 user reviews.
Author: Yukie
Thanks For Coming To My Blog
No comments:
Post a Comment