Alfie

Once ever 3 years or something the company that my father works for sends out a challenge to various computer companies and the company that comes up with the best computer packages for the best prize wins, and that will be the company their employees will be able to order computers from.

This time around we couldn't afford the most powerfull package so we had to go with the middle one. Now I got the specs of the computer and I don't really understand much.

I understand everything except for this:

Processor: AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+(dual cores), I've searched around a little bit for this and it seems like this processor has 2.0ghz, but our 3-4 years old computer has 3.6

Is there some secret that I cant understand that makes this processor better than our old. It's 4 years newer so it should be.

Curb Zone

 

Just_me

64 X2 thats your secret. You old computer might have higher ghz but 64 X2 is still a faster computer. Thats what I think...search google

- ONLY REGISTERED AND ACTIVATED USERS CAN SEE ALL LINKS - CLICK HERE TO REGISTER

slv

The X2 has 2 cores, one can say it has 2 processors in one, thus making it much faster. AMD 3800+ doesn't mean it has 3.8GHZ, but that it has the same performance as an Intel IV at 3.8 GHz. Enjoy it!!!

Snake Vargas

Well, your old computer is probably an Intel Pentium 4. They thought the way ahead was high processor speeds. Unfortunately, they eventually ran into unexpected problems. The processors couldn't be reliable at as high frequencies (GHz etc.) as they thought, so the Pentium 4 is now coming to an end (its successor of sorts has been recently released). The high frequencies mean that it also uses a lot of power, and as a corollary, creates a lot of heat. It didn't use to be a problem, where the tradeoff between processing power and energy efficiency was in favour of faster computers, but now, most people have as much power as they'll really need, and currently energy efficiency is largely back in favour, especially for businesses.

On the other hand, AMD's Athlon 64s had lower frequencies, but they made up for it by doing more 'work' per cycle. They introduced the PR number (e.g. 3800+) to counter Intel's marketing, and public perception that a higher frequency necessarily means a faster computer (it doesn't). They were also generally far more energy efficient, at the time.

This "X2" business means dual-core - another kettle of fish altogether. There are two processors on the one 'package'. It's not the same as being twice as fast, but it is much faster than one CPU in some cases, and only a little faster in others, and some cases show no improvement whatsoever. If you're doing multitasking, such as processing video in the background whilst doing something else, it helps a lot. If you're just playing a game and doing nothing else, it doesn't help at all. Good for multitasking.

As for the new Intel processors, then perhaps you can ask around for them. They'd probably go under the name "Core Duo" (for desktop; mostly they've been used in laptops up 'til now). Energy efficient, and good processors. Also dual cores, like the Athlon 64 X2. Normally I'd say to go for AMD, since I'm not a fan of Intel, but I'm not so blind as to recommend the Athlon 64 just because of the brand.

If I were you/your father/company, I'd probably see what the computer needs to be used for before making up your requirements. Graphics work? Multimedia processing? Or just plain office work? This will influence your choices a lot. Business computing is different to personal computing - you need to keep in mind the needs and get the most cost effective solution.

Porsche Guy

The biggest problems with high frequency processors is that they use a lot of energy to run and get extremely hot. A dual core processor, which is what I would assume your AMD unit is, runs two processors on one chip, which saves the manufacturer $$ as they don't have to make make two entire chips. The problem with dual core chips or just running two entire processors is that current program code is not currently designed to exploit numerous chips when running so you're not going to see as drastic a change in performance as you would expect. When programs are written to work with numerous processors then we will see much bigger jumps in performance.

NarutoRamen

Exactly what he said plus, I'll add this. With the x2 you are future proof. Not only are you going to get gains today but also tomorrow when more software that support 64bit processing comes out. Like porsche guy said, you won't see significant gains today but you will see gains especially when codes that support your processors come out.

I know because I have both...given I don't have the X2 but I do have the Amd's 64bit processor and on my other machine I have the pentium 4 with 3.2ghz...I will tell you this, my AMD comp is way quicker in response to everything then my pentium machine and in some cases more reliable.

Hope that was of help, i got more if you have more questions. I'm one of the rare car/computer nerds...LOL

edit: by the way I don't know what your father's company does but I personally work with 3d programs, photoshop/illustrator, video/music editing programs as well as some hardcore games. In every case the AMD has outperformed my intel.

Just_me

And I thought I was a computer geek Obviosly Im not, you guys got knowledge

NarutoRamen

Ha ha, I don't like the word geek...LOL especially since in america we have something called the Geek Squad..LOL

I have knowledge? I thought it was the devil speaking out of me

audi_rudy

haha the geek squad who drives there little black and white vw beetles that say geek squad all over them. how can you not crack up when you see them on the roads

Beemer B773ER

Hahaha... yup, those funny lookin Beetle's. You can imagine what was going through my mind the first time I saw them on my trip to Cali' .... hahahaha.... Go Geek Squad..!!

Curb Zone