Core 2 Duo - can I tell the difference

Being an average computer user and not a heavy gamer (only MS Flight Sim
2004 and soon X-Plane), will I be able to notice much of a difference
between my current Athlon 64 3700 (1gb CAS2 RAM) and 3800 machines (2gb
CAS2 RAM)?

"Merrill P. L. Worthington" wrote in message
...

Being an average computer user and not a heavy gamer (only MS Flight Sim
2004 and soon X-Plane), will I be able to notice much of a difference
between my current Athlon 64 3700 (1gb CAS2 RAM) and 3800 machines (2gb
CAS2 RAM)?



For "average" computer use you don't need a dual core CPU...

but for hi-CPU usage tasks such as PhotosohopCS2 or video editing...

the dual core CPU will make a nice improvement!



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Merrill P. L. Worthington" wrote in message
...

Being an average computer user and not a heavy gamer (only MS Flight Sim
2004 and soon X-Plane), will I be able to notice much of a difference
between my current Athlon 64 3700 (1gb CAS2 RAM) and 3800 machines (2gb
CAS2 RAM)?


Your computers are too recent for you to notice any difference with what you
do. They will even be able to run Vista perfectly well once it comes out.

ss.

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 17:17:22 -0500, "Merrill P. L.
Worthington" wrote:


Being an average computer user and not a heavy gamer (only MS Flight Sim
2004 and soon X-Plane), will I be able to notice much of a difference
between my current Athlon 64 3700 (1gb CAS2 RAM) and 3800 machines (2gb
CAS2 RAM)?



The idea of "average computer user" is a moving target.
*Most* average users don't even benefit from an Athlon 64 at
all, neither for the 3700-3800 level of performance or the
64 bit. So you may already be doing something a little more
demanding than the average user.

If you are, you'll have to consider that specific use and
seek benchmarks of the task on these different CPU
architectures, one cannot apply an average performance level
from either to a specific task and expect an accurate
performance projection.

In general, you would get more performance if you have two
or more simultaneous highly demanding tasks that continually
keep CPU at 100% load.

Synapse Syndrome wrote:
"Merrill P. L. Worthington" wrote in message
...

Being an average computer user and not a heavy gamer (only MS Flight Sim
2004 and soon X-Plane), will I be able to notice much of a difference
between my current Athlon 64 3700 (1gb CAS2 RAM) and 3800 machines (2gb
CAS2 RAM)?



Your computers are too recent for you to notice any difference with what you
do. They will even be able to run Vista perfectly well once it comes out.

ss.

I have the same interest in Vista as a fish does with a bicycle.

Merrill P. L. Worthington wrote:

Being an average computer user and not a heavy gamer (only MS Flight Sim
2004 and soon X-Plane), will I be able to notice much of a difference
between my current Athlon 64 3700 (1gb CAS2 RAM) and 3800 machines (2gb
CAS2 RAM)?

I was also wondering when I might see benefit from the dual core. I get
annoying
waits when I insert a CD and when I click on a floppy in Windows Explorer
(the
system tries to extract an icon from every single file). I guess it's
mostly device
drivers tying up the system for me. Hate that...

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 20:24:28 -0500, "Merrill P. L.
Worthington" wrote:



Synapse Syndrome wrote:
"Merrill P. L. Worthington" wrote in message
...

Being an average computer user and not a heavy gamer (only MS Flight Sim
2004 and soon X-Plane), will I be able to notice much of a difference
between my current Athlon 64 3700 (1gb CAS2 RAM) and 3800 machines (2gb
CAS2 RAM)?



Your computers are too recent for you to notice any difference with what you
do. They will even be able to run Vista perfectly well once it comes out.

ss.

I have the same interest in Vista as a fish does with a bicycle.



Yep, it'll be a shame when we get to the point where all the
OEMs only offer Vista.

"kony" wrote in message


[...]

Yep, it'll be a shame when we get to the point where all the
OEMs only offer Vista.

That's what happened with XP. In the beginning nobody wanted it. Now how
many Windows users would be without it?

DRS wrote:

"kony" wrote in message


[...]


Yep, it'll be a shame when we get to the point where all the
OEMs only offer Vista.


That's what happened with XP. In the beginning nobody wanted it. Now how
many Windows users would be without it?

Me, if there were a decent alternative.

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 13:13:07 +1000, "DRS"
wrote:

"kony" wrote in message


[...]

Yep, it'll be a shame when we get to the point where all the
OEMs only offer Vista.

That's what happened with XP. In the beginning nobody wanted it. Now how
many Windows users would be without it?



I still prefer 2K, or WinXP at pre-SP2 level, gutted until
it's evermore like 2K, so,