I'm always amazed at how processor technology leaps from year to year. The AMD Phenom can beat the quad-core processors now and core 2 duo which was just introduced is going down the drain. Nowadays, just about any app will support either dual core or hyperthreading. This is why it pains me when people come into my shop with an old P4 with no hyperthreading at all! I mean, sure dual core is much better than hyperthreading, but you at least need hyperthreading even for just browsing the web. I know that you'll get a lot more performance through hyperthreading if you're using windows xp (surprise surprise) than you would with vista. Dual core and vista were made for each other. Myself, I live with a hyperthreaded P4 computer clocked at 3.2ghz and 4gb of ram for the machine I frequently use. I have dual core PC's but I haven't noticed increased performance when using them as opposed to my hyperthreaded PC. Hyperthreading was particularly genius because it allows you to do more with your processor. When a packet is moving you it can also be processing another thread simultaneously. Dual core goes far beyond that though. With 2 cores you've got tons more power. For apps that weren't designed to take advantage of multiple cores, you can expect a 1.86ghz dual core processor to behave like a 2.2ghz single core processor in terms of performance to the application. If you have an app that supports dual core (typically games or other programs that require serious power), you still won't get double the processing power because you've got 2 cores, but you might get up to the 3ghz range. Hyperthreading was short lived because shortly after inventing the hyperthreading technology, they took it further and made a whole new core. Now we've got the quad-core processors. These things are monsters. I only have one quad-core computer and it's wonderful (I still have windows xp on it though). Like the dual cores, just because you have a quad-core processor does not mean that you just multiply your clock speed by 4 (ie. a 2ghz quad-core is NOT 8ghz). I heard that the maximum performance increase you can get from a dual core processor is 168%. Quad-core processors? I'm not sure.
Let's talk Celeron processors. They're the worst type of processor ever invented. Why do they suck so bad? I don't know and I don't care. All I care about is the fact that they suck and that I need to stick away from them. I haven't researched them because I've already gotten rid of every celeron computer I own and if I happen to get any more of them, I'll sell them for $1. In my experience, a 2.2ghz celeron computer performs worse than my old p3 900mhz computer did with windows xp.
Now, let's talk about AMD processors. The cheapest one out there today is the AMD sempron. It is said to be comparable to intels celeron processors, but I think that's just a rumor spread by intel to take some of the "you suck!" attitudes away from their celeron processors.
AMD sempron processors have served me well. I have no complaints. Next on the list is the AMD Athlon 64 series. These processors are obviously 64 bit, but some computers with AMD 64 processors can't support more than 2gb of ram. <_< AMD has a processor name and then a number after it. For example, I just got a great computer with an AMD sempron 2800 processor. This means that it is comparable to a 2.8ghz P4 processor, however it is only clocked at 1.7ghz. As you go up in speeds the increase does not stay the same. A 2.4ghz AMD processor is only equal to a 3ghz P4. This makes sense if you know the exact intricacies of processing speed equations (which I don't. I'm not that big of a computer nut). AMD also has a processor that's called "AMD 64X2". This simply means a dual core AMD processor. The AMD Phenom processors are quad-core and triple core AMD processors:
There is a lot more to know about processors. I'll add more later however I am honestly tired of typing. If anyone else wants to add more explanation to this thread, be my guest.
