Silkroad Online Forums

So I'm planning to buy a new computer, my problem is that I don't really know the difference between single core and dual core:

From what I read on google, for example, when comparing a normal single core 2.0 to a dual core 2.0, the dual core is 1.5 times faster yielding a net processing speed of 3, which is 1.0 faster than the single core

I'm not too sure about this concept because it seems a bit sketchy, so I was wondering if anyone can explain the difference and how can I calculate the net speed? Also what's consider a good processor nowadays?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
On another note, when choosing a graphics card I'm a total noob, I don't get what all the 3600, 9600 is all about. Just wondering if I can get some tips on choosing one? What specs should I look out for? what is consider good/bad?


Thanks in Advance

My advice to you would be to post your budget and what you plan on using the computer for
That way people who know what they are talking about can recommend you an appropriate system for a certain price, this would be much easier than recommending specific components using technical jargon you might not understand
Just a suggestion

I don't really have a set budget, but the main thing is for me to understand the differences between them so I would know what to choose from now on

Duo Core > Single Core

A dualcore is simply that, two cores on one die. A single core, one. So yes, a dualcore will usually outperform a single core, especially in multi-threaded apps. (Apps that can be "split" and run on both cores simultaneously.)Another thing is a dualcore is FAR superior to a siglecore when it comes to multitasking.. running several apps at once. Say for instance sro, a web browser, and a dvd being authored in the background. Dualcore is pretty standard for today's newer pc's and people building a pc. With the enthusiast using even triple and quad cores.

I wouldn't recommend over a dual unless you're into HEAVY multitasking and/or video editing.

Video cards are a little bit more tricky. There are two main supplies, Nvidia and ATI. Each company "ranks" their cards with a number system..

Nvida's top lines atm are: GTX200 / 9XXX / 8XXX series. Within series they are ranked also.. with the lower end cards from a higher series usually being beaten out by a higher card from a lower series..

ATI's latest cards are the HD4000 / HD3000 / HD 2000 series..

And that's why they are so confusing.. best idea on video cards is to visit computer forums / review sites and have a look at peoples reviews and the charts that a lot of review sites post. Toms Hardware usually has a nice gpu ranking list

You're going to want at least 512MB of video ram and pci-e..thats the basics.

Thx for the long reply EvGa that helped a lot

Also, just wondering are most applications nowadays have "split" functions for running on dual cores? I would imagine it to be so, since most people are going for dual core nowadays.

further more, would you guys say that dual core is not comparable to single core? since they are made for different functions? if they're comparable is there a way to do that?

And also what's a good speed for a dual core nowadays?

P.S. I'll also check out Tom's Hardware for video care rankings

Well they are both processors and they both have to perform the same job of running the os, apps, etc so yes they are comparable. A dualcore just has 2 in the same space as a singlcore. Same as the video cards, you could look up specs and comparison charts of different single vs dualcore chips.

A lot of apps are multi-threaded, but a lot still are not. It'll just take time for programmers to catch up. Still, the mutlitasking ability of a dualcore is where it shines.. Blowing a singlecore out of the water. Which is pretty common sense.. 2 is better than 1. Most video editing, burning, authoring apps are multithreaded now. And a lot of the programs that use a good bit of cpu power have been coded to run multithreaded now and more and more will be coded that way.

Speed.. err anything over 2Ghz should be fine. You wouldn't be able to tell a real-life speed difference in a 2Ghz cpu versus a 2.3Ghz. Only in benchmarking them would you see a small difference. And obviously as you go higher the change in speed is greater but the higher you go the costs usually outweigh the speed gains for a normal pc user.

Edit: Spelling and grammar =/