Ahahaha I didnt even get a dual core

[996GT2]

Nice buy on the 4000+, fast chip and 1 MB Cache too.

Threads like this make me appreciate my CPU more; sure, it's single core, but I don't do much heavy multitasking and since this thing is running faster than an FX-55 it's a pretty speedy chip

And anyways, in 1.5 years this will get replaced by a Merom Lappy anyway so I can live with it

 

[inveterate]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: inveterate
Any of you out there with x2 3800s I bet i can PWn u in any gaming bench with my 150 dollar opty

No you own me with your video card.. Games that's where it's at...processor is a negligible for the most part.

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTEwOCwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

what's ur g card,, i'll go borrow one from somewhere and we'll bench.

 

[inveterate]

Originally posted by: 996GT2
Nice buy on the 4000+, fast chip and 1 MB Cache too.

Threads like this make me appreciate my CPU more; sure, it's single core, but I don't do much heavy multitasking and since this thing is running faster than an FX-55 it's a pretty speedy chip

And anyways, in 1.5 years this will get replaced by a Merom Lappy anyway so I can live with it

The opteron 146 for 120 bux dude,, OMG get one ,, Getit noww,, not that u'd need it with a 7600gt but it's way better for pr0n.. LOLjkjk,, i ment games that are physics heavy

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: Zebo
So much hate in here

Nice chip... Good move, dual cores are way overated for gamers a casual users. Hot and unessesary and may cripple your overclock potential. Crank that baby up to FX-57/

damn.. should i be upset about my my "crippled" overclock (2.0ghz oc'd to 2.7ghz on stock voltage, cas2 mem timing)?

honestly, while some people might not benefit from an X2 processor (like those that don't run firewalls, antivirus, or other programs which might take cpu resources while the user is doing something else ), at $150 for a 3800+ X2, i see no reason whatsoever to get a single core.

still, if the OP is happy with his upgrade, that's really all that matters.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: inveterate
Any of you out there with x2 3800s I bet i can PWn u in any gaming bench with my 150 dollar opty

how's that? every game i can think of is held back by video card rather than cpu (unless you're running a really crap cpu). if we both had gf4 mx cards, a $5 p3 500 would prolly be just as fast as your "$150 dollar opty"

 

[deadseasquirrel]

People throw out that phrase-- "optimized for dual core"-- for gaming way too much. So far, in just the last few months, we've had several actual game developers claim dual-core optimizations either out of the box (Oblivion) or via patch (Call of Duty 2), as well as graphics card drivers... all of which don't show any advantages for a dual-core chip over a single-core. We're still left with Quake4 as the only good example of dual-core optimizations. And, while those optimizations help out with a good 30% increase in framerate at 1280x1024, those gains naturally diminish to about nil at higher resolutions.

To make a blanket statement that the OP should've bought a dual-core chip based off of future games being dual-core optimized is a reach, without knowing what resolution and settings he plays at (not to mention the fact that he will easily be able to upgrade to an X2 when/if those games arrive). Honestly, if I were building a new system, I personally would've picked the x2 3800+ over the 4000+... well, actually, I would've likely picked C2D, but that's beside the point. Right now, I have a single core 3000+, but at 1600x1200 AA/AF, no chip upgrade is going to increase my gaming experience over that 3000+. It would be a $100 upgrade for me to get the X2 (after selling my chip), for what would amount to pretty much no improvement in gaming (don't really have any other CPU-intensive needs). I'd rather set that $100 aside, add it to whatever I sell my XTX for, and grab a DX10 card when they arrive for a guaranteed improvement in fps.

As soon as a game (or other app I use) arrives and shows a significant improvement at my settings with a dual-core chip over a single-core, I'll make that $100 upgrade.

 

[WaTaGuMp]

Originally posted by: deadseasquirrel
People throw out that phrase-- "optimized for dual core"-- for gaming way too much. So far, in just the last few months, we've had several actual game developers claim dual-core optimizations either out of the box (Oblivion) or via patch (Call of Duty 2), as well as graphics card drivers... all of which don't show any advantages for a dual-core chip over a single-core. We're still left with Quake4 as the only good example of dual-core optimizations. And, while those optimizations help out with a good 30% increase in framerate at 1280x1024, those gains naturally diminish to about nil at higher resolutions.

To make a blanket statement that the OP should've bought a dual-core chip based off of future games being dual-core optimized is a reach, without knowing what resolution and settings he plays at (not to mention the fact that he will easily be able to upgrade to an X2 when/if those games arrive). Honestly, if I were building a new system, I personally would've picked the x2 3800+ over the 4000+... well, actually, I would've likely picked C2D, but that's beside the point. Right now, I have a single core 3000+, but at 1600x1200 AA/AF, no chip upgrade is going to increase my gaming experience over that 3000+. It would be a $100 upgrade for me to get the X2 (after selling my chip), for what would amount to pretty much no improvement in gaming (don't really have any other CPU-intensive needs). I'd rather set that $100 aside, add it to whatever I sell my XTX for, and grab a DX10 card when they arrive for a guaranteed improvement in fps.

As soon as a game (or other app I use) arrives and shows a significant improvement at my settings with a dual-core chip over a single-core, I'll make that $100 upgrade.

I run at 1680x1050 res since im running a 21" WS. The Opty for some reason never crossed my mind to get I was always set on the 4600+, then for some reason I just said screw it I will get the 4000+ for the price get the thing running and if I didnt like the chip I would take it back.

 

[StarBeamAlpha]

you'll be sorry when something in windows in the background randomly spikes your cpu causing you to lag, and then an orc will KILL you! Is a single core worth being dead?!? You are a pretty risky person.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: deadseasquirrel
As soon as a game (or other app I use) arrives and shows a significant improvement at my settings with a dual-core chip over a single-core, I'll make that $100 upgrade.

while i certainly agree with much of what you stated from a "gaming only" point of view, the single core a64's sucked at any type of multi-tasking (discussed heavily in other threads awhile back), much of which gamers/casual users experience (for instance who doesn't run some type of anti-virus?).

and while certainly not everyone does it, one huge advantage of dual-cores is very apparent when doing any type of audio/video encoding (almost everyone has on occasion ripped their cd audio to mp3), or when compressing/decompressing files.

or for the OP (and huge # of others who like WoW), dual-core really shines if you want to play WoW while talking on vent/teamspeak, listening to mp3's and ripping a cd/dvd all at the same time. while not every application is "dual-core aware", winXP is quite capable of allocating the appropriate applications to each core to spread the workload.

now, obviously this certainly does not mean single core cpu's "suck" (i have 4 single core pc's) by any stretch of the imagination, but at the same time, for same/similar prices, i ceratinly have not experienced a single downside to having a dual-core over single-core... sure, it uses a bit more power and puts out a bit more heat, but seriously... the realworld difference is so subtle that to make issue of it is absolutely asinine.

much like the situation is with C2D, in general, if you have a "high-end" single core setup, if your main interest is gaming there's really no need to spend lots of money to upgrade (unless of course you're just looking for bragging rights or have to live on the bleeding-edge), but if you have an older system which is in need of upgrading anyway, it just makes little sense to upgrade to a single-system if the dual-core pricing is the same.

 

[MrUniq]

Yes..the enthusiasts sites while i know they are being honest...undervalue dual core IMO. Having a seperate core running a game and windows using another has given me a noticeable improvement...even in games not optimized for dual core. UT 2004 which is old..even runs smoother and faster on my X2 opposed to my 3200+ because it isn't swapping resources with windows or random virus scan.

 

[smopoim86]

Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself

Originally posted by: broly8877
Ewww, single core.

 

[n7]

Heh, while i too prefer dual core over single core, for someone just playing games & no heavy multitasking, the 4000+ is a beast

Enjoy!

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM
much like the situation is with C2D, in general, if you have a "high-end" single core setup, if your main interest is gaming there's really no need to spend lots of money to upgrade (unless of course you're just looking for bragging rights or have to live on the bleeding-edge), but if you have an older system which is in need of upgrading anyway, it just makes little sense to upgrade to a single-system if the dual-core pricing is the same.

If you honestly believe that, then here's how you can prove it to me: lower your cpu multiplier by a full 2 for the next 24 hours. I.E., if it's highest is 10, make it an 8. Then do all of the things you normally do with it, and come back tomorrow, to let us know how much better it really was.

edit: BTW, who lets their antivirus software scan their hard drive while they're gaming? That's plain idiotic. A 5.0 Ghz Conroe wouldn't stand a chance, once the AVG (or McAffee, et al) hit the drive that your game is running from. And, hey, I run mine all the time while web surfing, and haven't noticed a single slowdown, with my 2.4 Ghz Skt. 754 3700 chip.

 

[CP5670]

The only differences I have noticed since getting a dual core (with a similar overclock) were somewhat improved Mathematica and Basilisk speeds along with affinity problems in some games. Overall, I'm not sure if it was worth it, even though I got it for $270 at a time when $325 was the standard price.

That being said, I think $150 is a lot to spend on a single core A64 for this point when the single core Opterons are closer to $100.

 

[WaTaGuMp]

Originally posted by: CP5670
The only differences I have noticed since getting a dual core (with a similar overclock) were somewhat improved Mathematica and Basilisk speeds along with affinity problems in some games. Overall, I'm not sure if it was worth it, even though I got it for $270 at a time when $325 was the standard price.

That being said, I think $150 is a lot to spend on a single core A64 for this point when the single core Opterons are closer to $100.

I havent seen an Opty thats the same speed as my 4000+ for $100, is there something I am missing? I am not being sarcastic but if there is one thats the same as the 4000+ speed wise I wouldnt mind seeing a link, just to satisfy my curiousity.

 

[CP5670]

Well, not at the same stock speed, but if you're willing to overclock then this is a pretty nice deal. The one I have does 3ghz on daily usage, although I got it quite some time ago. The 144s used to be even cheaper, but I can't find them anymore at Monarch.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: CaiNaM
much like the situation is with C2D, in general, if you have a "high-end" single core setup, if your main interest is gaming there's really no need to spend lots of money to upgrade (unless of course you're just looking for bragging rights or have to live on the bleeding-edge), but if you have an older system which is in need of upgrading anyway, it just makes little sense to upgrade to a single-system if the dual-core pricing is the same.

If you honestly believe that, then here's how you can prove it to me: lower your cpu multiplier by a full 2 for the next 24 hours. I.E., if it's highest is 10, make it an 8. Then do all of the things you normally do with it, and come back tomorrow, to let us know how much better it really was.

explain to me the logic behind this and i would be happy to. .. i mean, by your logic, if the single core clocks were reduced by 400mhz, the dual core would kick it's ass in gaming as well :Q

Originally posted by: myocardia

edit: BTW, who lets their antivirus software scan their hard drive while they're gaming? That's plain idiotic. A 5.0 Ghz Conroe wouldn't stand a chance, once the AVG (or McAffee, et al) hit the drive that your game is running from. And, hey, I run mine all the time while web surfing, and haven't noticed a single slowdown, with my 2.4 Ghz Skt. 754 3700 chip.

how many manually turn it off when they're gaming (lots of times i might be gaming late and it kicks in.. or, as i am able to do other things such as d/l in the background, the av software will scan a file)? and no... since my game doesn't run of the HD (if yours does you might want to add more RAM), that has no impact.

and the situations i mentioned are but examples; there are countless other way in which it might be beneficial... not to mention you only addressed on specific example i used.

 

[WaTaGuMp]

Originally posted by: CP5670
Well, not at the same stock speed, but if you're willing to overclock then this is a pretty nice deal. The one I have does 3ghz on daily usage, although I got it quite some time ago. The 144s used to be even cheaper, but I can't find them anymore at Monarch.

Yeah I had a feeling you meant speed by O/Cing, I just am not into it, I have done it in the past but since I can buy a good chip that works without doing it I have just always gone that route.

 

[imported_Truenofan]

i play heavy video card and cpu heavy games...mmorpgs and fps's i listen to music, and play vent, but i still get good framerates, i ran a stock winchester 3500 up untill today, which i overclocked to 2.41....i dont even know if im going to get an increase in framerates, but from all the benches i'v seen, a cpu doesnt really help in gaming unless you drop below a certain resolution. i on the other hand, run every game i play at 1600x1200 usually, most games out there...dont really use dual core all that well to justify the price of buying one....and like many are staying, if he's happy, so be it, leave him be.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM
or for the OP (and huge # of others who like WoW), dual-core really shines if you want to play WoW while talking on vent/teamspeak, listening to mp3's and ripping a cd/dvd all at the same time. while not every application is "dual-core aware", winXP is quite capable of allocating the appropriate applications to each core to spread the workload.

Who spends all day every day ripping and encoding music/video?

My wife plays several hours of WoW per day and she always has Winamp and Ventrilo running, and has absolutely no problems with system lag on a single core A64.

Originally posted by: myocardia
A 5.0 Ghz Conroe wouldn't stand a chance, once the AVG (or McAffee, et al) hit the drive that your game is running from.

I know why everyone wants dual core. It's to be able to run NAV and still be able to move the mouse. *baddabing*

 

[bnads]

LOL WoW is WoW, some people are so addicted to that game , performance doesn't even matter to them LOL

*it's like they HAVE TO PLAY...no matter what*

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM
explain to me the logic behind this and i would be happy to. .. i mean, by your logic, if the single core clocks were reduced by 400mhz, the dual core would kick it's ass in gaming as well

Well, he's already stated 2 or 3 times that he won't be overclocking, therefore, his single-core 4000 will be running 400 Mhz faster, plus has 1MB L2 cache, and if you use AMD's logic, it's 600 Mhz faster. Though, in all actuality, having 1MB of cache makes a 100 Mhz difference. And no, if you reduce the speed of a 4000+ by 400 Mhz, you still have a faster processor than if you have an X2 3800, since it has double the L2 cache.

 

[kmmatney]

I would have bought a Athlon 3700+ San Diego for $105. Only 200 Mhz slower, and costs one-third less. Best bang for buck for single core. I know you said you don't like overclocking, but I'm sure that every 3700+ cpu ever made can easily run at 2.4 Ghz.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: Zap

Who spends all day every day ripping and encoding music/video?

what.. now you have to spend "all day every day" doing something to get any type of benefit? if i spend a couple times a month taking 2 hours instead of 4 encoding video, that's a huge benefit.

My wife plays several hours of WoW per day and she always has Winamp and Ventrilo running, and has absolutely no problems with system lag on a single core A64.

aside from the fact "no problems" is rather subjective (some ppl are more discerning when it comes to this), i don't think i ever stated single core a64's necessarily had "problems".

Originally posted by: myocardia
Well, he's already stated 2 or 3 times that he won't be overclocking, therefore,

actually he hasn't. he did state once he's not really "into it" but has done it before. certainly does not mean he will never try to take advantage of a free 20+% boost in clockspeed.

[/quote]his single-core 4000 will be running 400 Mhz faster, plus has 1MB L2 cache, and if you use AMD's logic, it's 600 Mhz faster. Though, in all actuality, having 1MB of cache makes a 100 Mhz difference.[/quote]

cache size makes little difference except in synthetic benchmarks. for example, comparing these 2 processors:

Athlon64 3800+ (2.4 GHz) 512k L2 Cache
Athlon64 4000+ (2.4 GHz) 1MB L2 Cache

amd themselves only claim a 1-2% difference.

And no, if you reduce the speed of a 4000+ by 400 Mhz, you still have a faster processor than if you have an X2 3800, since it has double the L2 cache.

not noticeably, at least according to AMD themselves.

the problem is that at least with today's games, if you're running at least 2ghz processor, the gpu becomes the bottleneck (and even if he never overclocks he's certainly not going to notice performance improvements from a 2.4ghz 4000+ over a 2ghz 3800+ X2 in WoW), however there are tangible benefits derived from dual core outside of gaming.

i'm not sure why some in this thread have egos so fragile they need to defend single core cpu's by trashing dual cores.

and i never stated single core cpus were "bad". in fact, if only 1 thread or 1 application wants cpu time, then MHz is generally king, but if you ever do more than 1 thing at a time on your pc, or ever have occasion to run multi-threaded apps, than dual cores offer distinct advantages. with similar pricing, there really isn't a downside - especially if you overclock.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM
what.. now you have to spend "all day every day" doing something to get any type of benefit? if i spend a couple times a month taking 2 hours instead of 4 encoding video, that's a huge benefit.

Let me rephrase that.

"Why do you assume that everyone encodes audio/video at all?"

Last time I ripped/encoded a DVD was several years ago, just to satisfy my curiosity. I've probably ripped a CD since then, but can't remember when the last time was.

Just because you "can" doesn't mean you "do" or "will."

Originally posted by: CaiNaM
aside from the fact "no problems" is rather subjective (some ppl are more discerning when it comes to this)

How about I define "no problems" as:

"It runs exactly the same whether or not there are a few apps in the background as if there were no apps running in the background."

Of course we're not the type that lives or dies by 1% benchmark differences. Perhaps software can tell us those 5FPS that we're "losing" but tell ya what, I can't tell a difference by using the system and I'd be willing to wager that you wouldn't either.