I always believed that dual core was a money trick to trick people into thinking it was better and charging a lot for them, but most people on this forum support them so i'm confused.
If i open photo shop for example wont a athlon 4000+ single core be faster than an athlon 4000 x2. Because a x2 would only use one core which would be equiv of a 2000+ athlon.
Won't gaming be better with 4000+ rather than 4000 x2 because it's one programme. With my 2200+ at the moment i can burn a disk and surf the web so what is the deal with dual core. I've heard vista supports dual core and takes advantage of it but i'm planning on sticking with xp.
whats better dual or single core?
If i open photo shop for example wont a athlon 4000+ single core be faster than an athlon 4000 x2. Because a x2 would only use one core which would be equiv of a 2000+ athlon.
Won't gaming be better with 4000+ rather than 4000 x2 because it's one programme. With my 2200+ at the moment i can burn a disk and surf the web so what is the deal with dual core. I've heard vista supports dual core and takes advantage of it but i'm planning on sticking with xp.
whats better dual or single core?