Why does /g/ hate dual core processors?
Do you not realise that for many people a dual core APU or Pentium is more than enough for their uses?
Most people for who those actually are good enough will inevitably shit up the computer somehow, or if they ever decide they want to do slightly more it will just be complete shit.
Also modern software is shitty and bloated.
My mother is using an a6 APU. I'm using a turionx2 in my old laptop that I use to multitask with my desktop. There isn't enough difference in performing common tasks like web browsing to even justify having an i5 desktop if you don't need the extra processing power.
Yes, for browsing the web and watching 720p video there is really not much difference between a turionx2 laptop dual core with a hd3200 and a desktop i5 2400 with a gt 640.
Other than gaming, what does /g/ do that requires more than what a g3260 can provide? Serious question.
Then don't buy a dual core. Buy an I5 or higher, or an fx 4350 or higher.
Having only 2 threads cripples you immensely in multi-tasking which is what a laptop/desktop is for.
An i3 or A8 is the MINIMUM you should have in 2016. Preferably the A8 if you are too poor to afford a dedicated GPU.
The cheapest i3 is like $20 more than a the pentium meme btw.
If you're not buying a laptop you have no business buying anything less than a quad core these days. More cores improves multitasking even with poorly threaded applications. Speedstep and coolnquiet make the power usage difference pretty minuscule.
Not in Australia.
A g3260 is 80 dollars. The i3 is 180 dollars.
Nothing wrong with choosing a higher end cpu because some people legitimately need the extra performance but I'm still struggling to understand the hate againstbdual cores.
You do know that a dual core desktop is much more powerful than a dualbcore laptop, don't you? So if you support dual core laptops why be against more powerful dual core desktops?
>You do know that a dual core desktop is much more powerful than a dualbcore laptop, don't you?
>So if you support dual core laptops why be against more powerful dual core desktops?
Because with a laptop you actually have to consider power usage. The only benefit you get out of better power usage is you can save a few cents every month. After 5 years you might save a dollar, fucking big deal. You might as well spend that money up front for a much better chip and actually benefit.
its 2016 dual core is so fucking outdated it makes me sick
Because it's 2016. A dual core is fine for basic web browsing and stuff, but most people either use their PC for work or playing games like a child, and a dual core CPU is useless for both.
I rescued an old Pentium 4 PC from going in the dumpster at work. I installed OpenBSD + Xfce on it. For the sort of shit most people do, that would be sufficient. I guess most would be too fucking lazy to bother trying to learn their way around OpenBSD though.
Originally that PC had XP on it. The office manager had me clean all the shit off of it a few times, before he decided to replace it. It was fucking painful to try to use. With OpenBSD it's easy to forget just how old it actually is.
>cpu whimpers back to 2.4 GHz
>not a housefire
sure thing senpai
Kinda weird how open source hardware monitor does not read the cpu temp, it's suppose to be the most accurate hardware monitor out there.
I don't know to be honest. I've never used Tiny core.
The BSDs are lightweight compared to most of the Linux world, but OpenBSD is a bit heavier than the others, or at least can be. The full install disk comes with X (Xenocara, which is a stripped down, and more secured version of it). It's an optional part of the installation, but it's selected by default, and that's why it's heavier.
One thing to keep in mind with OpenBSD is that if you care about high performance, it's probably not the OS for you. It focuses on security, and code correctness, and it's designed to make things as simplified as possible, and let you get work done, but it's not going to win any performance benchmarks.
FreeBSD on the other hand offers good performance, and the developers care a lot more about Linux compatibility. The downside is that the developers don't see it as a desktop OS, and put minimal time and resources into improving the desktop experience--most of them use Macs to develop on.
The OpenBSD devs intend for their OS to be used as a desktop, and they use it to develop OpenBSD.
I like both, but I prefer OpenBSD. I'd pick it for a desktop, a router, or a simple server. FreeBSD is the way to go if your server needs are a bit complex, or if you absolutely must use Linux binaries for whatever reason. I don't really know enough about NetBSD or Dragonfly to offer an opinion on them. Dragonfly sounds really interesting though.
>using an i7 2620m dual core, runs great
>using an a4 7300 at work, runs great
>mother using an i3 2120, no problems yet
>father using an e8400 at work, no issues
>father uses an i5 650 at home, after an SSD upgrade it's faster than my desktop.
It's an i5 3570 quad core, and even then I feel like an i3 would be plenty for me.
My T420 with a 2620M has literally no problem handling just about anything I throw at it, including VMs, likewise for my X200. I can handle single-core chips just fine too. Learn the limits of your hardware and how to better take advantage of it instead of being a retard and trying to run 40 things at once you don't even need to keep open.