> > 2) Is Dual-Core worth the extra money, leaning towards > > Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core 5000+ > > Depends what you use computer for. > Tests done in time of AMD 64 vs. P4, showed that multimedia loves AMD wide bus > that can move data fast, but for the most of the other applications P4 was > faster.
Through experience... I would say that dual core would be the better choice. What Rajko says here is true... but where the dual core really shines is when you do more than one thing at a time. The multi core really becomes noticeable (compared to a single core) when you are playing with multimedia, or when you are doing something that pegs a core at 100%. On a single core, that's it, you're running at full capacity... whereas on a dual core, you still have a whole other CPU core to work with. > > 4) Finally, what are pro/cons for 32 bit or 64 bit of > > opensuse on a 64 bit computer. > > On AMD 64 3500+ GIMP graphic seems faster with 64 bit, while for normal use > ie. internet, mail I have feeling that 32 bit runs better. There has been quite a bit of discussion about this here on the list. My observation is that it really comes down to what you need the computer for... what applications you use. It is important to keep in mind that there are a few things such as multimedia codecs which are 32 bit only. If you are planning to use it as a typical home desktop, this means that several applications must be run as 32 bit... eg MPlayer, Firefox, mplayerplugin, w32codecs etc. You can do this on a 64 bit base.... it just means you need to manage parallel libs etc. Not impossible and lots here do this. Personally I still opt for the 32 bit install to make life a little easier since a significant enough portion (for me) of the apps I use are still 32 bit only. For home desktop use, I haven't found enough of a performance difference (yet) to make me want to change to 64 bit. ymmv C. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
