Core 2 Duo From Intel

[astral]

I know these new processors incorporate 2 cpus in one.

My question is how do I make the best use of the two?

Does it work automatically with Windows XP, or do I have use Vista?

Will standard apps like Photoshop CS use the power, or do I need to upgrade to a later version?

Can I tell one appn to run in core 1 and another in core 2?

I have been Googling, but cannot find any clear answers.

[Naam]

I know these new processors incorporate 2 cpus in one.

My question is how do I make the best use of the two?

Does it work automatically with Windows XP, or do I have use Vista?

Will standard apps like Photoshop CS use the power, or do I need to upgrade to a later version?

Can I tell one appn to run in core 1 and another in core 2?

I have been Googling, but cannot find any clear answers.

this processor is highly overrated as far its performance is concerned. i run the 3.4GHZ version and do not realize any major advantage compared to my aged AMD 2500+.

works with XP and any other operating system.

you cannot select in which core an application is run, that's done by the o/s automatically.

the main benefit is the low voltage, low heat emmission (important for laptops) and that's it (more or less).

[Simmo]

you cannot select in which core an application is run, that's done by the o/s automatically.

Not quite correct.

Open task manager - Right click proccess -> Set Affinity.

Can't do it for system process's though.

Vista is suppose to make better use of multi core cpu's than XP.

Over the next few years we'll start to see the major software suites & games become multi threaded to take advantage of multi core cpu's. Not much benefit at the moment though.

[MarkBKK]

you cannot select in which core an application is run, that's done by the o/s automatically.

Or Google ''set affinity''.

[Whoops, Simmo was too quick for me ...]

[Firefoxx]

For applications that use multicores (usually multimedia intensive applications like Premiere and Photoshop) the dual cores are taken advantage of automatically. You'll notice a difference if you do something like say, encode a 1 hour HD-DVD movie. Instead of taking 2 days on an Anthlon 2500+, it'll take maybe half a day. If you just use office applications, you probably won't notice much unless you're doing a lot of multitasking. Depends on your usage. Although Vista will do it better, I think it's not worth it just yet to change, since XP does a pretty good job already. A lot of processor intensive games are also taking advantage of multi cores.

Personally, I wouldn't switch from my current Core 2 Duo to an Anthlon. I have a cheap E4300 (only around 4K baht) overclocked to 3 GHz, which beats most stock processors. But I play 3D games, do HEAVY multimedia, and multitask like crazy (40+ windows open at any time), so I actually use the power that I have.

[Richard-BKK]

Dr. Naam you have a Core2 Duo 3.4Ghz? Maybe you have the much slower Pentium Dual Core 3.4Ghz as the Core2 Duo doesn't have a 3.4Ghz?

I have a 2.9Ghz Core2 Duo and much faster then the AMD Athlon 64 3000+ of my g/f...

Multitasking multi processor cores are supported as far back as Windows NT, and the best results you get running Windows 2000 Professional

[Naam]

Dr. Naam you have a Core2 Duo 3.4Ghz? Maybe you have the much slower Pentium Dual Core 3.4Ghz as the Core2 Duo doesn't have a 3.4Ghz?

OOPS Richard! seems i goofed with my statement

[solo siam]

Core2Duo's are very fast processor's, I sped up some media encoding from 5 hours down to 2 hours, with a simple switch from a P4 3.2 Ghz to one of the slower Core2Duo's.

[nikster]

I wouldn't run a single core processor anymore. I find XP just much snappier with two cores - there are no waits. I also do a lot of multitasking and often have 20 or so different programs open. It also helps when a program freaks out and eats 100% CPU - I can then just use the other core to shut down the offending program.

If you are one of those people who are running three programs and only use one of them at a time and work in full screen mode then you won't notice much of a difference. But if you run many programs or like to be able to let one program run in the background and crunch numbers and still be able to work, dual cores are the way to go.

As of now, there are rapidly diminishing returns with quad and octo core systems. But I am sure that will change as more and more programs take advantage of multiple cores.

[monty]

Biggest advantage I noticed when running a dual core processor, is the fact that previously cpu intensive processes tended to render your PC almost useless until they were finished. Things like encoding a video, ripping a simple music cd into mp3's etc resulted in the PC responding like a dog.

Now I can encode a dvd into AVI and still browse the web, or write documents etc without any slow down noticeable!

I've even burned a cd while encoding video, something before I just had to boot up a second PC for or wait an hour till the encoding was finished...