Home > Technobuddy > Archives > 2007 > February > 09 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USI’ve got the PC blues
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
This is one of those times I’m glad my wife doesn’t read my column. I’m feeling that old itch again.
I want a new computer. Notice I said “want” not need. Truth is, the computer I have runs my programs well, works with Vista and has a relatively fast 3-gigahertz processor.
This itch is all too familiar
I’d hate to tote up all the times I’ve given in to it. Almost every day now I shop for a computer online and plug in all the options I want. The first time I ended up - honest to gosh - with a $4,000 PC. Since then I’ve gotten the price down to $1,400, but it’s still too much. My car needs new tires, and our heating system is inhaling so much natural gas I’m afraid Al Gore will accuse me of contributing to global warming.
So while I’m marking time until my bank account gets healthy, I’m easing the pain by convincing myself that a new computer with a dual-core processor is really a bad idea.
Most of the machines I want use the relatively new dual-core processor. My guess is that your next PC will have one. Heck, there are already quad-core processors out there.
So let’s talk a little bit about dual-core processors. Maybe it will make me feel better.
One chip, two processors
Dual-core processors contain two processors on a single chip. The processor is the engine of the computer - in a way, it is the computer.
Business-level computers have long had more than one processor chip - so it isn’t some newfangled notion. The idea is to split up the work so it goes faster. Dual-core takes the idea to the next level. Instead of separate chips, you have one chip that contains two processors.
There’s a real advantage to that. The distance data travel is a lot less and - skipping some electronic theory here - keeping the data pathway on one chip speeds things in other ways as well.
The big argument for dual-core has been that single processor chips are bumping into the heat ceiling. When you increase the chip’s speed, you also increase the heat it throws off. Even now, a processor chip gets hot enough to literally fry an egg. Dual-core chips can avoid this speed limit by running a bit slower and still - in theory - outperform a faster single-processor chip.
That’s why most of the machines with dual processors are rated at slower speeds than single-processor PCs. For instance, a popular configuration using an Intel dual-core chip might run at 2.4 gigahertz vs. my antique 3-gigahertz machine at home.
For software that is written to take advantage of dual-core, the work gets split up and - just as two slow house painters can finish a job quicker than one fast painter - the job gets done in less time.
The key here is that the software you use must be written with multiple processors in mind.
Windows Vista takes advantage of dual-core technology, as do some computer games. But most of the programs on my computer at home do not. (Software packaging or the maker’s Web site should let you know.)
Feeling better
Here’s where I can make myself feel a little better about my pitiful bank account: If a program doesn’t have the computer code necessary to take advantage of the dual-core technology, it won’t run faster. There’s no doubt that this technology is how PCs will work in the future, but for now it’s not a huge advantage for most folks.
To be fair, there’s another way dual-core can outperform single-core chips, even for folks who run programs that are not written for the new technology. If you often run more than one program at a time, dual-core technology will speed things up noticeably. I usually stick to single-tasking, but you may be one of those folks who listens to iTunes while arranging your photo library and writing e-mails all at once.
That’s the best I can do at dampening my lust for a new machine. But maybe if I empty out the half-gallon wine jug that holds most of my savings in quarters, dimes and pennies, I could get a nice new monitor or maybe a video card. I think I’ll go online and price a few of them.
Do me a favor: If you bump into my wife, don’t mention any of this.
Permalink | Comments (4) | Post your comment | Categories: Columns
Services »
Comments
By CynicalGeek
February 9, 2007 11:56 AM | Link to this
I promised myself that I wouldn’t be an early-adopter of Vista on my personal PC, but I have. I loaded Vista Business 64-bit version on my 3 month old PC. I spent $600 building my own machine but I did not buy a DVDROM/CDROM drive or hard disks. I carried these over from my old computer. I bought a Athlon 64 x2 4000+ (2 cores, 64-bit, running 2GHz each, 2MB of L2 cache - http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/desktop/details.aspx?opn=ADO4000IAA6CS.) I also bought a Gigabyte motherboard, 1GB Corsair RAM, a new case and a GeForce 7300GT w/ 256MB RAM. It’s fast enough for Vista (well, I’ve only been running Vista for a few hours now.) I know the feeling all to well also, but this time I set a spending limit of $600 and I’m happy with my purchase. I hate it when Windows forces me to upgrade my hardware, but this time it didn’t hurt me too terribly bad.
By L.H.
February 10, 2007 07:49 PM | Link to this
Hmm, if you want a dual-core Intel PC, why not get a Mac? They are all now dual-core Intel PCs at heart, and can run Windows Vista just fine, but with the added benefit of also being able to run Mac OS X. An operating system with absolutely zero viruses and almost no malware whatsoever. Did I mention you can run Windows natively on it? (Either dual-boot or in a virtualized machine.) They start at $599 for desktops and $1099 for laptops.
By Kevin
February 11, 2007 01:25 PM | Link to this
Bill, I’m feeling the same way. I put together a new PC 6 months ago but I’m feeling the itch too. Not for a PC though, but a Mac. Don’t stop by those Apple stores, they make you want to convert. With Parallels, you can run any Windows program on a Mac (if you need to). Depending on my taxes, I just may have a shiny new Macbook sitting on my desk sometime soon.
By Wally
February 16, 2007 11:03 AM | Link to this
I started getting the itch too. It all started when I saw the performance ratings of the Core 2 Duo. Then I saw the performance ratings of some of the newer graphics cards. Finally, the Vista launch was looming. So, I broke down and bought a new MOBO, graphics card, 2Gig of DDR2 memory, a new case, two new 500Gig SATA drives, and of course, Vista. The result? A screaming machine with a pretty new OS. Is Vista better than XP? I can’t see any obvious differences except for the superficial ones. I’ve had to find lots of new drivers and upgrade to new, Vista compatible, versions of programs (like Nero). Some programs just don’t work - period. To get around this I will either have to keep a 2nd PC that runs XP or run XP from a “virtual PC” within Vista. My recommendation at this point is to wait until the first major Service Pack comes out for Vista and THEN switch.