Ahahaha I didnt even get a dual core

[Griswold]

Originally posted by: Farmer
Hmmm, 4000+ for $150, X2 3800+ for $150, I'm sorry, I can't say that's a good decision.

QFT

 

[LittleNemoNES]

I think you made a crap decision I have a 3500+ @ 2.75 on a separate machine and it chugs up when I'm burning a CD, surfing the web, and using GAIM... at least dual core is cheap ass hell so you'll be able to fix your MISTAKE easily.

 

[Adfaw]

Originally posted by: broly8877
Ewww, single core.

Everyone below me is free to quote this as a reponse.

Not sure I'd ever say that. Dual core seems like new techonology and still needs a lot of bugs worked out of it. I think he was smart to just get the 4000 and not the flashy dual core processor. I think that the quality of graphics card you have is much more important than the processor. As long as you don't get something cheap like a Sempron or Celeron.

 

[Regs]

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/

True, but I hope everybody jumps on quick. Make single core the thing of the past as quick as possible and hopefully we can have some next generation game engines that can use both cores. Hell , everybody jumped on PCI-E real quick when Intel put it's foot down.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: BreadFan

Originally posted by: saiku
watagump,

My sympathies. Paying $150 for a single core, when games are going to get optimized for dual-cores very soon (e.g. Crysis), is not a very astute move.

Can you name (not speculate) any other game coming out that's dual core optimized? If he's a gamer, single core is still a viable choice. By the time the majority of games released are dual core optimized, I'm sure we will have gone through a couple of generations of dual core processors.

Oblivion, Quake4 already use dual CPU/dual core. UT2007 will as well

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Adfaw

Originally posted by: broly8877
Ewww, single core.

Everyone below me is free to quote this as a reponse.

Not sure I'd ever say that. Dual core seems like new techonology and still needs a lot of bugs worked out of it. I think he was smart to just get the 4000 and not the flashy dual core processor. I think that the quality of graphics card you have is much more important than the processor. As long as you don't get something cheap like a Sempron or Celeron.

All the afore mentioned bugs have since been fixed on the AMD side of things. I have a X2 3800+ @ 2.6Ghz and after installing the small hotfixes I haven't had any issues in any games. I haven't heard any reports of C2D systems having trouble either.

 

[SparkyJJO]

eeewww.... single core

note the sarcasm

I'm using a single core 3700+ actually. Overclocked of course

 

[jiffylube1024]

I hope you game a lot!

Seriously, single core might be good for some poorly coded games (FEAR comes to mind -- fun game but chugs hard in situations), but dual core is better for everything else. Especially multitasking in Windows and then doing other stuff (like gaming ).

 

[Munky]

Meh, I've upgraded to a dual core about 5 months ago, and in most games/apps I run the second core goes to waste completely. The only big difference I see is in video encoding and image processing apps (Fireworks, Photoshop...). The heaviest multitasking I do is listening to Winamp while doing some work in one app, easily handled by a single core cpu. It was one of those upgrades that I didnt really need, but I just got it anyways. Single core cpu's aren't obsolete yet.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: munky
Meh, I've upgraded to a dual core about 5 months ago, and in most games/apps I run the second core goes to waste completely. The only big difference I see is in video encoding and image processing apps (Fireworks, Photoshop...). The heaviest multitasking I do is listening to Winamp while doing some work in one app, easily handled by a single core cpu. It was one of those upgrades that I didnt really need, but I just got it anyways. Single core cpu's aren't obsolete yet.

They will be pretty soon. Especially when you start seeing bottom end laptops with Dual core CPUs soon. Not immediately, but soon.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: 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.

It sounds like your just jealous the OP had the money to upgrade and you probably have to ask your parents for your allowance.....

 

[MrUniq]

what was the point of this entire post ... ?

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: MrUniq
what was the point of this entire post ... ?

It's to point out how much better single-core is than dual-core, or dual-core than single-core. Wait, I've changed my mind, it's to point out how much better PCI-E is than PCI, or was it how much better PCIE-E is than AGP (which is still quite viable, IMO, just not for a new build).

I've enjoyed reading it, though. I bought a single-core 4000, and then realized that when the time did come that I would want to go dual-core, I'd be SOL, most likely. So, it's at the top of my closet, and I built my new system with a 4400. Of course, when I bought the 4400, I had keeping it in the top of my closet in mind. Then I realized that since it cost considerably more, it would be wise to test it out. I still haven't even opened the box on the 4000.:shocked: It is definitely slower than my OLD Skt. 754 3700, though, both at stock speeds.