If you were to build a new PC - Would you build a Dual CPU machine or not?

Answer 1

Sure. But after adding up the costs of all the parts and software, I would go over to the DELL website and compare. You'd probably save money and have a decent machine.

Answer 2

It depends on what you're using it for and how much money you're willing to spend. If I were building a mid-range game system for myself I would get an AMD Athlon FX-57 CPU single core right now since it basically runs the same as the fastest dual core FX-62 with only one core and costs half the price. Since I don't run many programs that utilize dual core, I'd rather spend the money on the fastest single core available. Right now there aren't a whole lot of apps that use dual core but there soon will be. If you use Photoshop CS2 or Premiere then get a dual. For casual web surfing you don't need anything more than a single core machine and not a very powerful one at that. For my needs I can live without dual for awhile but I tend to upgrade every 3 years anyway.

Answer 3

Depends on what you use it for.

If like most people it's a mix of email, surfing, home accounts and the odd game or two then it's probably overkill.

Start Task Manager on you machine and see how much of the time your system is at 100% processor use.

It's a question of getting the balance right between the components on the machine.

There's no point in buying an expensive processor if it means cutting down on the amount of memory or settling for a slower disk or graphics card.

No matter what machine you buy it will be obsolete in a years time anyway, so do you want to pay top-dollar for something that has a fairly short shelf life

Answer 4

I am just re-building my " old " win98 machine, and just threw together a quick XP machine ( I have avoided XP - an 800 meg program with 4000 Megs of patches ) just so that I can learn how to use it to help others fix, patch, modify, sweepit six, fixit five, patchit pro, etc. etc.

I have been building machines since you had to solder the boards by hand ( shortly after Bill Gates programmed the ALTAIR for Ed Roberts in Albuquerque, New Mexico )

No matter WHAT you buy, and build, you can guarantee that it will be obsolete in X number of months... so you have to ask ...
-- What am I willing to spend ,FOR, what kind of performance..? ? Servers now have 4 CPU boards and each CPU is a DUAL, AMD core, 64 bit chip. If you look at some of the other answers on the ANSWER list, you will see discussions of what is DUAL vs single, and where speeds of CPUs is " STUCK" at the moment, and what will happen to speed in the near future, but, in brief, at the moment, a DUAL core gives you about 12 to 15% increase in speed. That's it. Sometimes, sort of. The increased speed it NOT double, since you have to use SOFTWARE deliberately written to use both processors. Otherwise, most of the time, running ordinary software, you are wasting the second CPU 85% of the time....
The IBM supercomputer project underway at the moment has given up entirely on ' FAST " CPUs and most servers and higher end units are now using multiple CPU's which are off the shelf. Each CPU is on a card, that goes has its own memory ( typically a GIG ), and 4 cards make up a unit, and Units are grouped into modules of 64 CPU's grouped into larger modules of 256 CPUs,
and at each module, there is a SHARED memory of X amount of GIGs of memory, etc. etc. and this allows a " FAST " supercomputer, -- with the note that you can ONLY RUN new, proprietary software, deliberately written for this one machine...

You can buy a 2 CPU ( AMD dual 64 ) motherboard, with typically a max of 10 Gigs of ram. You can fuy a 4 CPU ( AMD dual 64 ) motherboard with 16 or higher Gig of ram. It is just a matter of money. You can look at some of the previous answers for AMD/Intel Dual/speed MAx/speed questions...

You can buy RAM harddrives, ( solid state harddrives that are between 600 and 2000 times faster than a spinning/disk drive ).
you can buy DUAL PCI X ( PCI express ) motherboards, so that
2 video cards work a single monitor, at about twice the speed.
There are many things you can do to get a machine that will last a while, without becomming obsolete in 6 months -- but they all cost a great deal of money, since you would be using " NEW " stuff. ( A " FAST, SCSI, 1 GIG harddrive I am still using, originally cost $1000 - today, a 1 gig runs faster, with more onboard ram, and is thrown in the garbage as too slow and too small - price, if you can find one, would be $5 )

As for DUAL core, I probably would use a dual, since the price has dropped. I would look at DUAL CPU motherboards, though, if you have the extra cash, and then you really start to notice a bit of speed. Spend a bit of time looking at the ram, the speed of the harddrives, and most importantly, the VIDEO card (s ) since this would be the biggest single factor in gaining speed of a machine today, particularly in graphics intensive useages... ALSO, make certain that the motherboard can accept new, faster CPU's and clock speeds that come out in a year or so, so that you can just take out the CPUs and put in faster ones, down the road, instead of starting from scratch with a new motherboard.

There is information on RAM DRIVES in various ANSWERS, and a few companies have just released new part to part compatilble solid state harddrives so this is a HUGE area, and at 600 to 2000 times the speed, this will start to affect the " home " user market.

Generally, build the best you can afford at the moment, so that you dont end up having to start all over again in 6 months ! !

Whatever you do decide on, be certain to go online and look at benchmarks on the web by people who build the motherboards etc. just to compare them with real world applications. Make certain that the CPU / motherboard / video are solid for the work that you want the computer to do, -- then go out and spend the cash..

It pays to do a bit of research on the web BEFORE you make up your mind, and DON'T believe any advertisements until you you check out benchmarks by secondary parties.

hope this helps

Answer 5

If I could afford it I would buy a DUAL CPU, along with the components that could take advantage of it. I don't have one, but from what I read it is the biggest advance since clock speed! Heck, I have been building my computers since the 80386 days, and I seem to stay on the trialling edge of obsolescence. If I had the money, I would go for the new technology!

Answer 6

Not unless you really have to run that machine at mind boggling mathematical crunching 100% CPU.

A Dual CPU machine usually costs a lot and most of the times, the problem is not the CPU. Its the 100s of programs taht one installs and never removes.

Answer 7

Depends on what you want to do with the machine... if you have the cash and don't mind spending it a dual core will be faster than a single core but maybe it's a bit overkill for what you want??, for graphic design and video editing, ripping DVD's etc... dual cores are cool because they cut the processing time in half... however for gaming a single newer generation proccy will do just fine just as long as you couple it with a cool Vid card and lots of RAM

Answer 8

if money was not a question I would build a dual core..because windows vista will be optimized for dual core....Dual core is essentially the same as a dual CPU machine

Answer 9

Not me. It may come in handy if you used it professionally using CAD or Video editing. But in everyday gaming, surfing etc, the second processor will not be utilized to its potential. Instead I would spend the money on a $600 BFG geforce video card and Gobbbs of memory and a RAID array of seagate barracuda hard drives under a Xeon Processor. AHHHH I just came...

Answer 10

No.
I think the ordinary user just doesn't need Dual yet.

But if you are a power user, or like boring people with how brilliant you PC is, then go Dual.

:)