Is there "much" real world difference computing with dual channel memory config if the cpu is an Athlon?
466240
The big difference is the thruput that Dual channel gives you. That only really happens when you you're running MASSIVE Data crunching on your computer. If you're doing basic web browsing and document creation, you'll see almost no difference.
486429
With your configuration i think you will not want to overclock your computer, so what you have to look for if you want a better response, is a DDR with a low CAS delay. Look for a CAS  2 memory.
984607
Speed and type of RAM used is dependent on the chipset used to make the mainboard. \n\nIn your case, the answer is "no way". DDR2 didn't exist back then except in a lab.
376516
its got a dual core. 2 cpus in one ( some thing better than hyperthreading
186259
The Pentium D is a 64 bit chip. The AMD Athlon 64X2 is a dual-core processor while the Athlon 64 is a single core.
5387
If you rate speed by Ghz then, yes, your brother's computer is faster by 200 mhz.  Note, however, that your Athlon64 has more cache and faster bus speed which should translate in running programs faster.
792140
There is a big difference in the architecture of both CPUs. An AMD CPU has an integrated memory controller. This serves as a link between the CPU and the memory (RAM). Intel CPUs do not have this, so it relies on another chip to serve as the link with the memory. This saves up space on the CPU, so Intel decided to increase the cache size on their CPUs.\nMore details.\nBecause AMD has the integrated mem controller, it performs faster than an Intel CPU with same clock speed. You have to know that it is not the CPU clock speed that matters, but the FSB clock speed. So if you need a 'fast computer' you need a lot of memory (RAM) and a high FSB.
248577
http://www.intel.com/technology/hyperthread/\n\nbest i can do for ya!
273141
Yes, they are very comparable.  In most in-depth reviews of processors, the Athlon X2 is compared to a P4 and they normally run pretty much neck to neck, with only a 3-5% difference between each other (the top one tends to swing back and forth).\n\nHowever, if you want to compare to a Xeon, you really need to look at the Opteron series of processor, not the Athlon.  Comparing Athlon to Xeon is like comparing an Athlon to a Celeron.  A Xeon will always beat an Athlon, and an Athlon will always beat a Celeron.\n\nMost video editing systems I have built have been AMD.  First dual processor Athlons, then Athlon 64, now most are Athlon X2 or Dual Core Opteron.  Comparing price per speed they are the best value.  And even in the cases where they fall a little behind the P4EE-Xeon, the amount is fractional.\n\nIf you can wait, later this year the Opteron will be able to use DDR2 RAM.  Considering it holds it's own with DDR, it should blow past the Xeon with DDR2.
323494
That's a pretty good question. The Intel Core Duo  has a different archtecture than AMD Athlon XP, so they will perform better or worse depending on the applications you're running.\n\nA 1.66 GHz Pentium M (Dothan CPU) is approximately the same speed as a 1.6-2.0GHz Athlon 64 and about the speed of a 2800+ - 3000+ Athlon XP. The core duo will definitely be much faster in multitasking situations, but for the most part, you won't see a large difference in speed compared to the AMD Athlon XP 2700+.\n\nHere's a benchmark from Tomshardware that compares the core duo to the Athlon X2 desktop processors:\n\nhttp://www.tomshardware.com/2006/04/24/dual_core_intel_processors_for_low/
680356
Sadly, the Pentium D's are pretty much 2 scaled-back Pentium 4 Northwoods slapped onto a single chipset. It's not a new architecture. They pretty much use the same decoding instructions.
996391
DDR2 4200 is just the the type and speed. The terminology "dual-channel DDR" is, in fact, a misnomer. The fact is there's no such thing as dual-channel DDR memory. When properly used, the term "dual channel" refers to a DDR motherboards chipset that's designed with two memory channels instead of one. The two channels handle memory-processing more efficiently by utilizing the theoretical bandwidth of the two modules, thus reducing system latencies, the timing delays that inherently occur with one memory module. So, "dual channel memory" is related to the motherboard, If a motherboard supports dual channel is the only time this would have any effect.
40650
Definitely the Athlon 64x2.  It's the best processor on the market and completely thrashes Intel in any benchmark test.  Any amount of memory over 2GB is purely academic but you could always upgrade your motherboard and processor at a later time if you really wanted to get more memory.  If you are looking for proof (though I am sure you have done your homework), http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/11/21/the_mother_of_all_cpu_charts_2005/page24.html but most of the ones at the top are single core Athlon 64 chips and the Pentium 4 is nowhere to be seen.  That being said there weren't many multithreaded applications for the dual core chips to take advantage of.  Once games and applications are enabled to take advantage of two core chips the x2's will be riding high at the very top.  Intel, you suck!
119678
Static RAM and Dynamic RAM
902972
Simply stated, dual-channel memory architecture splits the available RAM into two data channels, resulting in a bandwidth, or data-transfer rate, that's double that of a single-channel system.\n\nDual-channel mode requires that you install identical or "matched" RAM modules. Matched modules have the same physical number of chips in the same physical configuration. Physically dissimilar modules, even of the same capacity, may not work as well. You also need to insert the modules in specific slots. If you have four slots, for instance, you'll need to insert the matched modules in the first and third or second and fourth slots.\nIf you want to double-check whether your memory configuration is indeed running in dual-channel mode, Memtest86+ ("http://www.memtest.org/#downiso") reports this information.
522783
pretty good it is fast and good for multi-tasking but i would get the turion 64 X2 that is the dual core one and also get 64 bit so that you can update to Windows Vista it takes less battery the the athlon 64.
410382
The past 16 months or so have seen an unprecedented number of genuine breakthroughs in the field of processor design, especially from AMD. Not only did that company introduce a truly compatible 64-bit processor design which has since dominated the high-end desktop PC market, but it also pioneered the on-die memory controller which has given the Athlon 64 and Opteron chips a leg-up in performance over Intel's offerings. Intel has since adopted 64-bit compatibility also, and now both companies are releasing processors with another brand new feature, dual-cores.\n\nDual-core processors work pretty much as you'd expect them to. At their most basic, both Intel and AMD have taken two mostly (or in the case of Intel, fully) functional processor cores and joined them together in a single processor die. Each core functions and processes data independently, and the two are co-coordinated by the operating system software. \n\nIn this article, PCSTATS is going to focus on both company's versions of this technology, how it works, and the kind of performance boost you can expect from it. Currently only certain of AMD's Opteron server-class processors are available with dual cores, but very shortly AMD will release the Athlon 64 X2 line of dual-core desktop processors. Intel has taken the opposite approach, already releasing the 'Pentium Extreme Edition 840' desktop dual-core chip, while its 'Pentium D' and dual-Xeons lines are not far behind.   \n\n\nSince dual-core processors are essentially a multi-processor system in a convenient package, let's start by looking at some of the multi-processor technologies which have contributed to AMD and Intel's newest products.\n\nSMP (Symmetric Multi-Processing) \n\nSMP is the most common approach to creating a multi-processor system, in which two or more separate processors work together on the same motherboard. The processors co-ordinate and share information through the system bus, and the processors arbitrate the workload amongst themselves with the help of the motherboard chipset and the operating system. \n\nThe OS treats both processors more or less equally, assigning work as needed. Both AMD and Intel's new dual-core chips can be considered SMP capable (internally). AMD's dual-core Opteron server processors can be linked to other dual-core chips externally also, but this capability is not present in either company's desktop dual-core lines. \n\nThe major limitations of SMP have to do with software and operating system support. Many operating systems (such as Windows XP Home) are not SMP capable and will not make use of the second physical processor. Also, most modern programs are single-threaded, meaning that there is only ever one current set of linked instructions and data for them. This means that only one processor can effectively work on them at a time. Multi-threaded programs do exist, and can take better advantage of the potential power of dual- or multi-CPU configurations, but are not as common as we might like. \n\nNo other current mainstream desktop processors are SMP capable, as Intel and AMD tend to restrict cutting edge technologies to the higher-end server processors such as the Opteron and Xeon. In the past though, mainstream processors have been SMP capable, most notably the later Intel Pentium 3 processors.