AMD 64 or AMD 64 X2 for gaming rig?!?

[Kaspian]

Is there a big performance difference between the two when it comes to gaming?

 

[deadseasquirrel]

Yes and no.

Gaming performance depends greatly on the settings and resolution of the game (as well as type of game) you're playing.

An X2 4400+ is going to perform almost identical to an A64 3000+ when playing Call of Duty 2 at 1600x1200. Whereas, you'll see the X2 pull ahead by a 10-30% margin at 1280x1024 on Quake4.

All in all, gaming performance is more affected by the power of the video card rather than the power of the CPU.

edit: forgot to ask-- why are you asking? Are you building a new system? Upgrading an existing one? What is your budget? What does the rest of the system look like?

 

[brikis98]

it also depends which A64 or X2 chip you're picking, waht resolution you play at, what games you play and what other tasks you'd use the computer for.

 

[RussianSensation]

if you are building a new system, go for Core2 duo.

Otherwise, if you are on a budget A64 3000+ overclocked to 2.6ghz with X1900XT will destroy Core 2 duo 6600 with 7600GT in every game.

In the future as more games start to take advantage of physics and more complex AI is incorporated, dual core processors will start to pull away. For most games now, dual core provides little benefit for gaming.

As has been mentioned most of the funds should first be directed to the videocard.

 

[hennethannun]

Originally posted by: deadseasquirrel
Yes and no.

Gaming performance depends greatly on the settings and resolution of the game (as well as type of game) you're playing.

An X2 4400+ is going to perform almost identical to an A64 3000+ when playing Call of Duty 2 at 1600x1200. Whereas, you'll see the X2 pull ahead by a 10-30% margin at 1280x1024 on Quake4.

All in all, gaming performance is more affected by the power of the video card rather than the power of the CPU.

edit: forgot to ask-- why are you asking? Are you building a new system? Upgrading an existing one? What is your budget? What does the rest of the system look like?

But the former case is rather misleading:

an x2 4400+ has the same sinlge threaded performance as a 3700+ (2.2ghz, 1MB L2), but it will perform similarly to a 3000+ in COD2 at 1600*1200 because that game at that resolution is GPU bound far more than CPU bound.

Quake IV is optimized for dual core processors, and at a lower res, the more powerful dual-core system will show better results.

for the OP:
basically, there are only 5 or so current games that can take advantage of dual-core, but that number is only going to go up since most of the big releasees on the horizon will be SMP ready. And given the low price of X2s right now, there is little reason not to get one. the only temping single core deal out there right now is neweggs FX-55 for $139 (if that is still available), but even then, you can generally OC a 3800+ up to 2.5ghz and get similar single threaded performance PLUS dual core.

But an even more pressing question is: in what context are you looking for a new processor.

If you already have a socket 939 pc and want to upgrade the cpu, go X2.

but if you are building an entire new system, i would definitely think about a low-end core 2 duo build. the E6300 doesn't cost much more than a 3800+ X2 and will perform better (especially after overclocking is taken into consideration).

 

[deadseasquirrel]

Originally posted by: hennethannun
But the former case is rather misleading:

an x2 4400+ has the same sinlge threaded performance as a 3700+ (2.2ghz, 1MB L2), but it will perform similarly to a 3000+ in COD2 at 1600*1200 because that game at that resolution is GPU bound far more than CPU bound.

Quake IV is optimized for dual core processors, and at a lower res, the more powerful dual-core system will show better results.

It's not misleading. That's exactly what I meant for it to say. We're saying the exact same thing. If you game at a GPU-bound resolution, don't worry so much about the processor (and it's not just COD2... *most* games are GPU-bound at 16x12).

But I agree with everything else you wrote. It all really comes down to why the OP is asking the question (which is why I added my edit).

 

[Kromis]

Lol...I noticed something...

Whenever there is a thread about picking which AMD processor to go with, at LEAST ONE person mentions the Core 2 Duo.

GAWD!

Single core usually does better, I believe.

 

[dennilfloss]

If you play a game with a lot of AI and multiple characters interacting in towns, e.g. Oblivion, going dual will help.

 

[Spikesoldier]

before you start worrying about CPU choices in a pure gaming rig, double check or dump the excess money into the video card, the #1 factor in gaming performance.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Kromis
Lol...I noticed something...

Whenever there is a thread about picking which AMD processor to go with, at LEAST ONE person mentions the Core 2 Duo.

GAWD!

Single core usually does better, I believe.

not suprising... C2D kills a A64 in any flavor.

Personally I'd get an x2 because there's no reason not to.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: Kromis
Lol...I noticed something...

Whenever there is a thread about picking which AMD processor to go with, at LEAST ONE person mentions the Core 2 Duo.

GAWD!

Single core usually does better, I believe.

Kinda like the 'what P4 for gaming' threads like yesteryear.

The simple fact is, if someone can afford an X2, they can pretty much afford an E6300. Not saying that X2s are bad for gaming, but C2Ds are definitely better in non GPU limited games.

 

[kman79]

Originally posted by: harpoon84
The simple fact is, if someone can afford an X2, they can pretty much afford an E6300. Not saying that X2s are bad for gaming, but C2Ds are definitely better in non GPU limited games.

I completely agree. If your building a new comp, go C2D. However, I hardly think it is necessary for a C2D system for games that are currently out. Most games are more GPU limited thatn CPU limited. If you already have a decent board and some good DDR RAM, spend the cash on an X2 and a good video card.

 

[Kur]

If all you are doing is gaming go for an FX-55, they are like $130 right now if I remember right.

 

[hennethannun]

Originally posted by: Kromis
Lol...I noticed something...

Whenever there is a thread about picking which AMD processor to go with, at LEAST ONE person mentions the Core 2 Duo.

GAWD!

Single core usually does better, I believe.

ok, you are being silly.

for a completely new build, there is VERY little incentive to buy AMD right now. that is not partisanship, that is just good economic sense.

An E6300 costs about $15 more than an X2 3800+ (last i checked) but it will perform more than 20% better on average. that is an excellent return on a very small marginal cost increase. and DDR2 memory is no longer more expensive than DDR (if anything the opposite is true with the current crazy DDR prices). the only drawback to a C2D board is the low/expensive motherboard selection, but that has already loosened a bit and will only get better).

as i said, if you already have a s939 system, then going AMd can make a lot of sense. and if you want single core, then going AMD is also a good idea (for budget performance it is hard to beat the cost and upgrade potential of a sempron AM2 system).

as for single cores doing better in general, that is just wrong. single cores tend to cost less per mhz of clock speed, so they tend to be clocked higher than equivalently priced dual core cpus, but in terms of actual performance, dual cores now perform (with the AMD dual core driver/optimizers) every bit as well as equally clocked single core chips in single threaded apps, and they can also get as much as 80% of a performance boost from SMP ready apps.

Unless you are building a TRULY low-end PC right now, dual core is the way to go (that was not the case before this past july, but IMO it definitely is right now).

the FX-55 is/was $139 from newegg, but it was OEM. It's a great deal, but not super-mega-extra-fantastic-must-have.

 

[akshayt]

In most of todays games dual core either doesn't do wonders or it is of not much use as even single cores can get good scores with a good graphic card. But for near future games like UT07, Crysis and most of all Alan Wake, dual core is strongly recommended. In fact even a FX 57 won't be able to run AW while a X2 3800 will.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: akshayt
In most of todays games dual core either doesn't do wonders or it is of not much use as even single cores can get good scores with a good graphic card. But for near future games like UT07, Crysis and most of all Alan Wake, dual core is strongly recommended. In fact even a FX 57 won't be able to run AW while a X2 3800 will.

I guess intel and the dev team marketed Alan Wake right...all the previews I've seen are not impressive at all. But buying a system for that game gave Intel some free cash from people who can't think for themselves.

Let's see how many people hype their system on the fact that "I can play Alan Wake but you can't lolz OMG WTF BBQ STFU" :disgust:

 

[videopho]

Originally posted by: akshayt
In most of todays games dual core either doesn't do wonders or it is of not much use as even single cores can get good scores with a good graphic card. But for near future games like UT07, Crysis and most of all Alan Wake, dual core is strongly recommended. In fact even a FX 57 won't be able to run AW while a X2 3800 will.

I concur.
Look for more games that are designed to take advantage of dual core in the 2007.


AMD vs Intel
I'm an AMD guy but I'd opt to go with Conroe this time around.
My next build in early 2007 will most likely be a c2d cpu.