Should I choose a dual core processor or a single processor?

Question

I'm going to buy a laptop that I'll use for Photoshop, 3ds Max, and gaming.

I read that if an application isn't programmed to use both processors, it'll use only one. For example, 3GHz processor will run faster than 2X 2GHz.

So, should I go for, lets say, 3.4Ghz instead of 2x 1.8Ghz? But isn't 3.4Ghz at a higher risk of burning out?

Thanks

Answer 1

Go with a dual core by all means. It is not exactly true that just because a specific application isn't programmed for dual core, it won't take advantage of dual core processing. Dual core CPU's in fact take advantage of the applications themselves, it's not just the other way around (but certainly, using an application designed for dual core processors would help even more). If you go into task manager in Windows XP (and probably Vista), you can access a "processor affinity" menu by right clicking on any given application. From there you can select which CPU's (or cores) you want the application to use. Try turning one off; you should notice a performance decrease.

3.4GHz (or something comparable to it) isn't going to "burn out". But unless it's a 65W AMD Athlon 64 or something, it's likely to suck a lot of power and therefore generate extra heat. As long as it has a good heatsink and fan, it's not going to fail, though.

I strongly suggest using a dual core CPU, it's the future of computing and makes a huge difference. I had a 2.2GHz single core AMD Athlon 64 3400+, and upgraded to a 2.2GHz dual core AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+, and the performance increase -- for everything -- is awesome. Note how the clock speed is exactly the same, but I can tell you that every single thing runs faster.

Answer 2

Any way you go a 3.0ghz processor will be fast, but if you were to compare them the dual core will make the single core seem sluggish - now the quad core no doubt make the dual core seem like a single core in comparison. The difference will mostly be noticed during multi tasking the dual core can handle more than the single core with no problem and the quad core would be able to handle more so you wouldn't have to worry much about bottle necking or lag. Edit: I would choose the 3.2 ghz dual core for now and a motherboard that would be compatible with the quad cores like a socket AM2/AM2+ so that you could upgrade to a quad core at a later time (just wait for the 3.0 ghz quad cores to come out ;)).

Answer 3

Thats true about applications not using multiple processors .. but most applications today can do load balancing between two cores..... all applications are going to be multithreaded and capable of handling multiples cores in future .. so why deny urself the luxury of a dual core when you are getting one for almost the same cost as a single core proc ..
Dual cores help you a lot if you are multi-tasking .. like ripping a movie in the background and playing games together ..
Today's dual cores come with very huge cache compared the the older single core procs .. and they also consume a lot less power .. and they have greater memory bandwidth ...

so .. go in for the dual core ...

Answer 4

The answer above makes sense, but it really depends on what you do more... If you multitask more and like to do many intense things on your computer at once, go for the dual core. But, if you want a powerhouse to run single applications, such as games, very well then choose the single. It really depends on what you will do more. I have a dual core and regret it, i play games more and could have used that extra power :(

BUT, I feel if you are going to get Dual Core processors that will equal or surpass the Single Core in Ghz, then go for the dual core. Although watch your pricing ;)

Answer 5

There are several things to consider other than the hardware performance and you are the only one who can weigh these and come up with a good decision.

1. Options: If you are going to use the laptop mostly for mobility computing then later transfer your data on to your desktop computer (where it is more convenient to work and play games), then a solo core is not bad. Concentrate on the desktop upgrade.

2. Will the laptop be your only machine?: If you have the cash to spend, go for the dual core but not necessarily the "top of the line". Laptops are upgradeable only to a limited degree and you know how fast electronic items depreciate. So it is a balance of these .

3. Your budget: Dual core is relatively new so they put premium on this. Chances are, solo core is on bargain sale.

4. Purpose: It is good that you mentioned in your query about your purpose. Depending on your options (number 1), single core laptop can handle them almost as well as dual core laptops. But if you really need speed, go for the Duos. Serious works (office works)need very little computing power. Games are the most demanding. In reality, we only need less than 10% of the computing power of the average computer.

5. Your personality: I can't elaborate on this. There are people who like to have "the best of the best" and flaunt it to impress other people they don't like. Others would just like to satisfy their ownselves with the idea that they own fantastic computers which they don't even need. On the other hand, there are also people who would squeeze, to the last breath,
the life of their computer before thinking of upgrading. Some still does not believe in Emails.

You know where you stand.

Answer 6

The fastest single core mobile processor runs at 2.0Ghz only; the Celeron M450. Core Solo T1400 runs at only 1.83Ghz. Both are based on the Yonah core.
The mobile dual cores are clocked faster. Core Duo T2700 runs at 2.33Ghz. Core2 Duo T7700 runs at 2.4Ghz.

If you have 3D graphics in mind, you better choose the graphics processor first then the cpu second. 3D graphics performance is a lot more dependent on the GPU architecture, core clock and videoram clock speed.

Here's a link on laptop graphics cards and their relative rankings:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-Go-7600-GT.2141.0.html