Ahahaha I didnt even get a dual core

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: 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."

and because you don't means everyone doesn't? hmm.. wonder what ppl use the tens of thousands of blank cd/dvd's sold daily.. frisbees?

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.

you'd lose that wager then; you don't even have to take my word for it. there's plenty of data on the net that shows the differences in multitasking between single and dual cores. heck, logic would dictate if you take away from 100%, you have less than 100%.. that you are not able to notice that doesn't mean mean the differences don't exist

besides, what i stated was, "dual-core really shines if you want to play WoW while talking on vent/teamspeak, listening to mp3's and ripping a cd/dvd", and as you claim you never burn cd/dvd's or encode audio or video, i'm not sure why you feel the need the argue that point... unless you're just really sensitive about having a single-core cpu?

at any rate this debate is really pointless; if you're happy with it, that's what matters from your perspective. heck, there are lots of ppl perfectly happy with ford escorts

doesn't mean everyone else feels the same way tho.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM
besides, what i stated was, "dual-core really shines if you want to play WoW while talking on vent/teamspeak, listening to mp3's and ripping a cd/dvd", and as you claim you never burn cd/dvd's or encode audio or video, i'm not sure why you feel the need the argue that point... unless you're just really sensitive about having a single-core cpu?

Never said I don't burn DVDs/CDs, just that I don't encode. And I'm typing this on an A64 x2 3800+ overclocked to 2.4GHz default voltage passively cooled with a Scythe Ninja. what of it?

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM
doesn't mean everyone else feels the same way tho.

I never said that. My point was that not everyone needs/wants dual core - NOT that nobody needs or wants it.

Originally posted by: CaiNaM
at any rate this debate is really pointless; if you're happy with it, that's what matters from your perspective.

Let's take a look at something I said in my first post in this thread:

"I say they made the right choice if they're happy with their purchase - no need to force other people to make the same choice that they made."

Thanks for agreeing with me.

 

[MonkeyFaces]

It's just a damn cpu, a piece of sillicon, quit whining and bitching about who's right. Hardly anyone is cpu limited nowadays as long as you have a 2.2ghz a64 or 3.4ghz pentium netburst. Even if you have a dual card configuration, being cpu limited isn't a problem as long as you stress your video card by turning on all of the eye candy and features. Let the fool who's trying to justify his single core purchase be happy with it. He obviously only wants it for games now and ignores the indications that future games are beginning to utilize dual core more. *cough* oblivion

 

[StarBeamAlpha]

So he started this whole thread arguing about cpu performence and doesn't even overclock? hmm

 

[MonkeyFaces]

It doesn't matter. He is just desperately trying to justify his "upgrade".

 

[WaTaGuMp]

Originally posted by: MonkeyFaces
It's just a damn cpu, a piece of sillicon, quit whining and bitching about who's right. Hardly anyone is cpu limited nowadays as long as you have a 2.2ghz a64 or 3.4ghz pentium netburst. Even if you have a dual card configuration, being cpu limited isn't a problem as long as you stress your video card by turning on all of the eye candy and features. Let the fool who's trying to justify his single core purchase be happy with it. He obviously only wants it for games now and ignores the indications that future games are beginning to utilize dual core more. *cough* oblivion

Yes for Obliv the dual cores help but I already played and got bored with it and even if I did play it again I could easily run it on this system cause I did with my AGP setup, tweaking and mods ftw.

 

[MonkeyFaces]

Don't you find your decision a little short sighted? That's like having $300 and purchasing a 7600gt because you only play 1280x1024. In about a month or two, you will be gaming on medium settings and wishing you could have gone with the 7900gt. If you had a decent single core before "upgrading" to an uber single core, then I hope you enjoy your 2 fps increase. Anyway, I really couldn't care, as long as you are satisfied with your purchase. However, if it were me, I would have hammered my face in with a hammer if I purchased a single core (again) when dual core was similarly priced. IMO, what you did was akin to upgrading a 7800gtx into a 7900gt when you could have purchased a 7800gtx and run sli.

 

[WaTaGuMp]

Originally posted by: MonkeyFaces
Don't you find your decision a little short sighted? That's like having $300 and purchasing a 7600gt because you only play 1280x1024. In about a month or two, you will be gaming on medium settings and wishing you could have gone with the 7900gt. If you had a decent single core before "upgrading" to an uber single core, then I hope you enjoy your 2 fps increase. Anyway, I really couldn't care, as long as you are satisfied with your purchase. However, if it were me, I would have hammered my face in with a hammer if I purchased a single core (again) when dual core was similarly priced. IMO, what you did was akin to upgrading a 7800gtx into a 7900gt when you could have purchased a 7800gtx and run sli.

No I dont cause I did homework on the difference between the 2 and right now I dont care if a FEW games use the dual core and can 150 FPS over 130. I saw plenty of benchmarks where this chip ran alot of games better then a dual core. By the time I really need a dual core there is a shot they will be even cheaper and I can upgrade then.

 

[MonkeyFaces]

Whatever floats your boat

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: MonkeyFaces
*cough* oblivion

You may want to see a doctor about that nasty cough of yours.

this is my 1st AMD and im pretty happy

Dude's happy with it and that's all that counts. Oblivion supporting dual core doesn't mean diddly squat for a WoW player.

Some of you guys are way too gleeful trashing something as soon as the next newer thing comes out.

Oh, dual core is out, single core is so dead.

Socket 939 is out, socket 754 is so dead.

Core 2 Duo is out, AMD is so dead.

I got a clue for y'all... "older" technology does not magically stop working from one day to the next.

Of course the manufacturers are laughing all the way to the bank from you guys falling over yourselves to convince yourselves that you need to upgrade.

Yes, having the latest/greatest e-penis is very nice. Just start saving up them pennies for when quad core comes out, because magically dual core CPUs will be so dead. I mean, c'mon, all indications are that quad core aware games will eventually show up.

 

[MonkeyFaces]

Honestly, you will never feel cpu limited as long as you have a decent cpu. You will feel a marginal performance increase if any, going from a 2.2ghz single core a64 to a 4000+. I'm not saying single cores are obsolete (when did I imply that?). I'm just saying, when I upgrade a component, I actually want an upgrade, not an exact duplicate part that turns my previous, decent part into paperweight. Dual core was a viable option for $30+. I'm sure the cpu manufacturers are laughing their ways to the bank by convincing penny pinchers that a single core part was a better purchase than a dual core part. Like I said, when I upgrade, I want to actually upgrade. I could care less what people think about my epenis, but the op made a big mistake by cheaping out on DC when it was the smarter option.

 

[WaTaGuMp]

Originally posted by: Zap

Originally posted by: MonkeyFaces
*cough* oblivion

You may want to see a doctor about that nasty cough of yours.

this is my 1st AMD and im pretty happy

Dude's happy with it and that's all that counts. Oblivion supporting dual core doesn't mean diddly squat for a WoW player.

Some of you guys are way too gleeful trashing something as soon as the next newer thing comes out.

Oh, dual core is out, single core is so dead.

Socket 939 is out, socket 754 is so dead.

Core 2 Duo is out, AMD is so dead.

I got a clue for y'all... "older" technology does not magically stop working from one day to the next.

Of course the manufacturers are laughing all the way to the bank from you guys falling over yourselves to convince yourselves that you need to upgrade.

Yes, having the latest/greatest e-penis is very nice. Just start saving up them pennies for when quad core comes out, because magically dual core CPUs will be so dead. I mean, c'mon, all indications are that quad core aware games will eventually show up.

OMG I better get a qaud core when they come out cause people here decide whats right and not right. Man I wont be able to live if I dont buy the so called RIGHT chip in some peoples eyes. Gimme a freaking break anyone who sat down at my comp to play a game would be more then happy with how it runs. Like I said before I have done the whole gotta have the newest tech thing and quite frankly you always DONT.

 

[MonkeyFaces]

When did I say I was on the bleeding edge of technology? I have a pentium 4 630. I just think you're a retard(I take this part back, I was just pissed you were assuming I am trying to shove the bleeding edge of technology down your throat) for choosing the 64 4000 over the x2 3800.

 

[deadseasquirrel]

Originally posted by: MonkeyFaces
He obviously only wants it for games now and ignores the indications that future games are beginning to utilize dual core more. *cough* oblivion

Not sure what the cough is for, but Oblivion shows pretty much NO benefit from a dual-core chip, according to Firing Squad. A 10% increase at 800x600 0xAA/0xAF with Bloom isn't what I would call "utilizing dual core more".

Pointing to future games is fine, as I agree with you there-- future games will likely utilize dual-core technology much better than current games. However, IMO, one should *never* buy a component in order to play a future game better. Plus, the OP plays at 16x10, where, like you mentioned, he's much more GPU limited. So, even when dual-core is at it's best right now (Quake4), the 30% gains come at 1280x1024, not at higher resolutions.

Though I disagree with how you say that the OP is retarded (that's just rude), I agree that, for the same/similar price, the dual-core chip would be the better "value". But, nothing is gonna stop him from swapping out for an X2 once he finds a game or app that will benefit from it.

 

[MonkeyFaces]

Touchette
I guess cpus are just useless for gaming rigs nowadays. If you are cpu limited at 1600x1200, then you don't need the 100fps. I thought dual core was the only compelling reason to upgrade right now, but I guess I'll just cancel my x2 3800, forget about a conroe motherboard, and buy a p4 single core supporting sli board. If this idea is completely nuts, then please stop me and tell me why.

 

[akshayt]

At the moment there will be many games where X2 3800 compares to Amd 64 3200 at stock.
But games that use dual core may see the x2 being noticeably better. Anyway for future games i would rather get x2 3800 over the amd 4000.

Also, x2 3800 can be oced many times to 2.4 or higher, maybe even 2.6 or 2.7 and then it is better than your amd 64 4000 or atleast equivalent.

 

[WaTaGuMp]

Originally posted by: akshayt
At the moment there will be many games where X2 3800 compares to Amd 64 3200 at stock.
But games that use dual core may see the x2 being noticeably better. Anyway for future games i would rather get x2 3800 over the amd 4000.

Also, x2 3800 can be oced many times to 2.4 or higher, maybe even 2.6 or 2.7 and then it is better than your amd 64 4000 or atleast equivalent.

Oh yeah and my XT can overclock and be as good as your XTX, but I bought the wrong chip and you bought the right card lol

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: akshayt
At the moment there will be many games where X2 3800 compares to Amd 64 3200 at stock.
But games that use dual core may see the x2 being noticeably better. Anyway for future games i would rather get x2 3800 over the amd 4000.

Also, x2 3800 can be oced many times to 2.4 or higher, maybe even 2.6 or 2.7 and then it is better than your amd 64 4000 or atleast equivalent.

well, unless they use the second core for gfx processing i don't think that will happen any time soon. video is the current bottleneck, and above 2.2-2.4ghz you won't see any difference when just gaming, which is why the conroe's really aren't any faster either (running games), but it's still wrong to say conroe is not superior (just not necessarily in gaming).

it's the other things you do while gaming, or anything involving mustitask/multithread apps, where dual core shines.

 

[MonkeyFaces]

Originally posted by: MonkeyFaces
Touchette
I guess cpus are just useless for gaming rigs nowadays. If you are cpu limited at 1600x1200, then you don't need the 100fps. I thought dual core was the only compelling reason to upgrade right now, but I guess I'll just cancel my x2 3800, forget about a conroe motherboard, and buy a p4 single core supporting sli board. If this idea is completely nuts, then please stop me and tell me why.

WTF was i thinking about!??!?! Glad I didn't cancel my x2 3800 just yet. I did a little research from sources other than firing squid. If the dual core support right now (that has been present since and maybe before far cry) provide any indication that dual core utilization is getting better, and are marginally worse than their single counterparts, then I can be safe with the x2 3800 for a good 2 years, maybe more.
What made me change my mind was when I was looking for a conroe sli board. To say the least, they were fscking overpriced, $280 without tax and shipping applied overpriced. For a little less than that, I can get an sli amd board and an x2 3800. Anyway OP, I'm glad your glad about your purchase, and hope you are satisfied with marginally better performance for apps that don't utilize dual core (2fps to be exact), while I enjoy a 15% performance increase in Oblivion. Okay, I was sarcastic, but I'm still glad that you enjoy your purchase.

 

[LOUISSSSS]

too bad with my dual core a64 @ 2.4ghz i can run virusscans, spyware scans, dvdshrink and still get 100fps in cs:source @1680x1024 (see system in sig), i guess thats the benefit i get of having dual core over single core users

 

[MonkeyFaces]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: akshayt
At the moment there will be many games where X2 3800 compares to Amd 64 3200 at stock.
But games that use dual core may see the x2 being noticeably better. Anyway for future games i would rather get x2 3800 over the amd 4000.

Also, x2 3800 can be oced many times to 2.4 or higher, maybe even 2.6 or 2.7 and then it is better than your amd 64 4000 or atleast equivalent.

well, unless they use the second core for gfx processing i don't think that will happen. video is the current bottleneck, and above 2.2-2.4ghz you won't see any difference when just gaming, which is why the conroe's really aren't any faster either (running games), but it's still wrong to say conroe is not superior (just not necessarily in gaming).

it's the other things you do while gaming, or anything involving mustitask/multithread apps, where dual core shines.

With what you stated in mind, is there any compelling reason to purchase an x2 3800 +am2 mobo? Should I stick to my p4 prescott 630? If I did the latter, would it be a sound decision to pick up a conroe capable mobo w/ sli (costs as much as x2 3800+sli mobo), or would I be safe for a year or 2 going with a cheap sli intel mobo that only supports my single core cpu?
Goal: Best real world performance with price : performance ratio in mind
Options:
$260 x2 3800+msi kn9 sli mobo
$280 conroe capable p5nd32 se deluxe sli
$110 cedar mill ready (cheap ass 8xx line dual core support)
Right now, I'm leaning towards # 1, and 3.
# 3 is really attractive, how long could it realistically last? I will jump to a 2nd 7900gt when
Crysis, or similarly resource hungry apps/games arrive. Would I see much of a difference
between an x2 3800 and a p4 3ghz in a real world situation, where the gpu is stress as much as possible? My guess is that the p4 can compete with it well.

 

[CP5670]

There is also the affinity issue to consider, which has given me a fair bit of trouble in older Unreal-based games. At one point I was actually planning to swap the processors between my rigs because of this problem, so that the main one would have the single core. I still have the dual core in there only because I upgraded to the newer version of Mathematica recently (which has multicore support) and have been getting some pretty nice speed improvements in that.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: Zap

Originally posted by: CaiNaM
besides, what i stated was, "dual-core really shines if you want to play WoW while talking on vent/teamspeak, listening to mp3's and ripping a cd/dvd", and as you claim you never burn cd/dvd's or encode audio or video, i'm not sure why you feel the need the argue that point... unless you're just really sensitive about having a single-core cpu?

Never said I don't burn DVDs/CDs, just that I don't encode. And I'm typing this on an A64 x2 3800+ overclocked to 2.4GHz default voltage passively cooled with a Scythe Ninja. what of it?

well, my basic premise all along has been that dual core makes a difference when gaming while doing other tasks.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410&p=13

i think this bears this out. not much left to debate.

 

[Stratmanx]

My 2 cents worth when comparing apples to apples as best as possible:

AMD single cores, like the 4000 mentioned by OP, are great for gaming, besting their Intel equivalents and generally as good as the top of the line AMD X2's. Excellent choice, my man.

But, and there always seems to be one in the crowd: The new Conroes seem to be killer chips overall for the money. Although there are few motherboards, and the one's out now are expensive, the Conroes are probably the way to go for someone building a new system that gives the best bang for the buck either stock or overclocked. Even though I am a long time AMD man, Intel seems to have done a great job.

The AMD X2 3800 can be overclocked like gangbusters even on air, though the higher end X2's are limited in comparison. If you don't overclock and want an AMD gaming chip, the 4000+ single core is a great choice. This is even more logical and economical if all you need to do is upgrade from a slower CPU while keeping all other components the same. Then again, the X2 4600 and 4800, near equivalent performers, are great in most games as well, but they do cost more than the aforementioned CPU's.

We all know dual cores kick serious butt over single cores on multithreaded apps and multitasking. Being able to quickly do video encoding with dual cores is suhwheet! Gaming may not be improved significantly using today's games but in the future that will change since Intel's Conroe will give added impetus to developers. You can do high FPS with either single or dual cores but you will have trouble sooner when multitasking and gaming on a single core compared to dual cores.

Patches/hot fixes/updates for socket 939 X2's are no more difficult that downloading and installing a file. No tweaking or hidden settings to worry about. Anyone capable of putting their own system together should be able to do this easily.

Bottom line - the single core AMD 4000+ is a great chip for the vast majority of users. Those that more than occasionally encode, Photoshop, do heavy/specific multithreaded tasks or are hedging their bet on near future programming (whatever that means) should go dual core.

For a comparison of these and other CPU's, see: http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=233&chart=68&model2=240