Why is dual core getting a beat down?

Advantages: Apps coded for dual core run much faster then a single core at the same speed, able to set one CPU to do one task and set the other CPU to do another task. For instance game and encode movies or whatever, not that you'd want to do that...?

Disadvanges: Most apps don't support dual core so it's like having a single core system all the time.

My opinion of course.

Because its way over priced for "what you are getting". The first dual core cpu is only a stepping stone (read "testing production") and will only be on the market for 6 months or so before its tossed out for Memron which will be the CPU that stays around like the PM. Your not going to see any big performance boost from it since very few app are going to make use of it at this time.

I could go on but it comes down to what YOU want. Personally I'd get a new 9300 and mod it up and save a 1000 bucks. Thats just MY opinion though .

I see no point in going to dual core.. beacause as you said.. there are not that many apps that support DC, and they way that Intel make there Dual cores..

I wont go in to details (i can if you realy want to aruge), but Intel cant make dual core for shit, in some parts of the system it cause larger bottle necks.

Theroticaly there is not much performance boost only about 8% in real world terms. (Single Core)

And "Experts" say that Dual Core apps (Main stream stuff) wont be here for another 2 or 3 years.. By then you lappy will be so outta date..

GO AMD.... Intel Suck...

Only if Dell And AMD decide to make a nice 64bit turion lappy.. wont be happing for a long long long time

And Yes.. I understand that I have a Intel in my laptop.. But you tell me some one that sells laptops with a AMD and great warrnanty like dell. There isint (In Australia that is)

I've read that your not going to see any boost in gaming for sometime yet.

because its totally useless.

i'm sure 100% of the people getting dual core are going to be playing games while ripping a dvd onto their HD and then burning it while installing a game while playing another game...

I think that a lot of it may be the fact that it's human nature to hold on to something you've got (especially if you've paid money for it) in the face of having that thing replaced.

I purchased a 9300 during the end of December and had problems with it and was more than willing to send it back when I heard about the dual core systems coming out. Currently only a few games are optimized for dual core, but that was because there really isn't a lot of dual core machines out there. But I would have to assume that with the deployment of dual cores on both laptops and desktops, there would have to be a lot of development in games currently in development, as well as manufactures patching our current favorites to take advantage of the new technology.

I for one really need dual core functionality. I rip DVD's and do a lot of media work, as well as recording/sequencing with Cubase, and dual cores will enable me to save some real time.

Give one of the people a dual core machine and ask them if the would want to go back and I'm sure that answer would look a little different.....

.....or maybe have a fully fledged OS running in the background on VirtualPC/VMware.
yup...dualcores would help @ that. Tho..i'd rather go with AMD X2's than intels.
memory management, and local cache addressing rock with the AMD's

dual cores do great with multitasking but usually get beaten by single core cpu's for most tasks

Go read the quake for benchmarks with and without dual core enabled. Quite a performance bump might I say.

Edit: Note the 3800+ FPS at 2.0GHz imagine what a 2.6GHz X2 like mine would perform.




Stock 3800+ 77FPS with it off, 101 with it on @ 1280x1024.

^ do the math, that's quite impressive. If only I had quake 4.

I'm with spiderkhan

It's hard to accept that some new peice of hardware is better than mine. In the past, dual cores have been slower, but I have to admit, the Yonah doesn't appear to be so. It's lame that you can't OC those Yonahs though, then that would be something. I guess I need to be content with the fact that my 2.26 GHz (OC'd 1.7) processor cost me $130. Well, OK, after I sold my 1.6 GHz processor for $115, it cost $15

if you look at the bottom line Anadtech just did a real article of the Yonah in a lappy and compared it to a non dual core and the fact is the numbers are blah at best in most cases getting minimal proformance increases.

I just ran COD2 at 1440x900 on near max settings with no stutter whatsoever on my 2.26 pin modded CPU with a 6800U and it was so schweet it was stupid.

I will eventually go to the 7800 but I am running this laptop till the wheels fall off.

Yonah Schmona

It got more than minimal performance increases in everything but gaming, in which case it got around the same.

I won't speak to the technical points, since most of that has been addressed. Personally, I don't find it attractive because it's new. In my opinion, most computer companies (and not just Dell, either) are too keen to overcharge because something is new.

I would be leery of jumping onto dual core now just because of that. I'd be more inclined to pick up an AMD64 just because I feel like there's a stronger presence among mainstream owners ("Heck, my brother has one!"), and it's not so much a novelty. And applications for '64s are easier to find nowadays.

If I were you, I'd think about that 9300 again. And in a year's time, if I was still gung-ho about dual core, I'd go for it.

Just my $0.02.

from what I saw in the anadtech article that just came out in Asus Laptops it was minimal at best.

not sure if you looked at the same piece I did

shoman24v, what was the graphics cards used in those benchmarks?

Comparing frames per second doesnt really help in figuring out how well the processor is performing.

At the moment the introduction of dual core is just for the people who, A) Have a reason for it (they may already have a dual core AMD), B) Early adapters who will re-buy a dual core processor that is better in another year, and C) Companies testing the waters.

For most people a single core processor is fine, you would get more of a performance boost upgrading RAM.

if only theyd run a benchmark at 1920x1200...

These Intel dual-cores are being dumped on for two reasons:

1) They aren't 64 bit. AMD already has the 64 bit X2 dual-core out and its been out for quite a while. Yeah, yeah, 64 bit operating systems are still being worked out, but they'll be here very very soon (XP 64 is already available, Vista will be 64bit with a 32 bit option). Why pay for a dual-core machine to future-proof your notebook when its going to be obsolete when 64-bit becomes mainstream in the next year or so?

2) The fastest Intel dual-core performs as well as the slowest AMD dual-core available. AMD X2 chips aren't much more expensive than the Yonah is being offered for, either, for a significant increase in raw horsepower.

Intel can't keep up with AMD so far in the dual-core area. AMD's dual-cores smoke the Intel's and they even use DDR while Intel requires DDR2 (cheaper memory usually makes up for the slight increase in price for the AMD X2's).

AMD has gotten it out the MUCH earlier and with MUCH better performance. Intel is lucky they stumbled into the Pentium-Ms for notebooks, otherwise they'd really be in dire straights. I bought my Pentium-M M170 knowing that it will be obsolete in a year or two because, for the next year or so at least, the additional $1500 to get a notebook with an X2 4400+ isn't justified by its useability. The P-M 2.0GHz does everything I need it to as the most reasonable price point. In a year or two, you'll probably see me buying an AMD socket M2 dual-core using DDR2. Buying a Yonah now would be a HUGE waste of money. If there was no price difference between single-core Pentium M's and dual-core Yonahs...AND the performance in games was as good with the Yonahs or better, then sure...Yonah's the clear choice. But its not, its significantly more expensive with very little benefit and almost zero longevity. Even when Merom is released, AMD's offerings will probably stomp all over it anyway. Screw Yonah and probably screw Merom unless they really get their **** together. If you're going dual-core, go AMD.

also, dual core cpus are 100mhz slower than their price equivelant. a 2.13ghz dual core is supposed to be compared to a 2.26ghz single core, not the 2.13ghz. another thing, pinmodding. i jsut got my laptop upto 2ghz, and it didnt cost me a thing. when you start comparing a 2ghz dothan to a 1.66ghz duo, that costs more, yonah doesnt look very impressive.

also, i feel so stupid calling it a "core duo".

smooth, you really have no idea what youre talking about...

amd will release the dualcore turions in march or so. the amd X2 is a desktop chip, and it wont work in any notebook under 10 pounds.