Any Gamer go Dual Core and regret it?

[xTYBALTx]

Originally posted by: Hacp
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2452&p=5

Need I say more??

Interesting. The 2.2ghz X2 is barely slower than the 2.4ghz single core.

I'd get the X2 in your position.


Edit: Nothing.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: xTYBALTx

Originally posted by: Hacp
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2452&p=5

Need I say more??

Interesting. The 2.2ghz X2 is barely slower than the 2.4ghz single core.

I'd get the X2 in your position.

It isn't the dual core. Its the MHZ increase. Seems odd that 2.7 GHZ only beats 2.4 GHZ by 1.2 Frames, while 2.4 GHZ 1gb beats 2.2 by 1.6 frames. Is all the scaling of the processors. Benchies are doom3. 2.4 is barely slower than 2.7...

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Frackal
LOL

Dude, I allowed twice for the fact that although the DC beat the single core in virtually everything, in like 2-3 out of the 8 the single core beats the 4200+ (margin of error maybe) while the 4800+ won all 8/8

Admit defeat=pwnzorrr!

BTW, x2 issues are somewhat fact, MOSTLY fiction.

 

[Bona Fide]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: theman

Originally posted by: Muscles
Bona Fide: Please don't take this in a negative way but do you personally own a Dual Core system or is what you're saying hear-say?

his system rig says he has a 4400+

Read his 2nd post.

My 2nd post? You mean the second post in this thread [my post]? I don't get what you mean.

Anyhow, Muscles, yes I have an X2. It's in my system, which you can look at by clicking the link in my sig. It's an X2 4400+ currently running just short of 2.6GHz.

 

[xTYBALTx]

So, uh, do any strictly gamers have an X2 and not like it?

 

[Bona Fide]

Originally posted by: xTYBALTx
So, uh, do any strictly gamers have an X2 and not like it?

I'm not a "strictly" gamer, but I would say 60% of my computer time is game-related. So far I've played [and extremely enjoyed]:

Battlefield 2
Far Cry
Half-Life 2
SC: Chaos Theory

All ran at 1280x1024 with full settings, full AA, and full AF, with no problems. And alt-tabbing is wonderful.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Bona Fide

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: theman

Originally posted by: Muscles
Bona Fide: Please don't take this in a negative way but do you personally own a Dual Core system or is what you're saying hear-say?

his system rig says he has a 4400+

Read his 2nd post.

My 2nd post? You mean the second post in this thread [my post]? I don't get what you mean.

Anyhow, Muscles, yes I have an X2. It's in my system, which you can look at by clicking the link in my sig. It's an X2 4400+ currently running just short of 2.6GHz.

I meant the OP's 2nd post that isn't the Original post. Basically the Op's 3rd post.

 

[ElTorrente]

The x2 4800 is just BARELY slower than the supposedly uber fx57. The fx57 is clocked faster than it, and is the "ultimate" gaming cpu - and yet it only beats the slower clocked x2 4800 by a few frames per second in every game test.

This, of course, is on a benchmark machine with NOTHING else running and a totally fresh install - OFFLINE - in perfect conditions... and it's STILL only a few frames a second faster.

How about when you are online and your computer has to communicate with a server with 64 people online. Throw in Anti-virus, Anti-spyware, Firewall, TeamSpeak, GameSpy/All Seeing Eye, IE, profile managers for devices, pinging the server and sending TCP packets online, FRAPS, blah blah blah.. and you WILL see a big difference with an extra core!

It's just silly to think that hardcore gaming online and REAL WORLD computing is somehow faster on a single core!

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: ElTorrente
It's just silly to think that hardcore gaming online and REAL WORLD computing is somehow faster on a single core!

:thumbsup:

There is no valid reason NOT to go for the X2 right now. The 3800+ is an incredible deal.

I've got my X2 at 2.6 per core and I'd put it up against an FX-57 any time.

 

[MatthewMaes]

Originally posted by: Muscles
I realize the majority of people are going to say get the X2 just because it's the newest thing. I need reasons more than that. Ideally, gamers who have already gone dual core will be able to answer my question best whether it's worth it or not. Everytime I compare the two processors on paper, the 3700+ looks like the better choice because it has 1mb cache, a higher stock clock speed, possibly higher overclock potential, it's over $100 bucks cheaper, and the games I'll be playing now or in the near future aren't multithreaded. Now on the other hand with an X2 I can encode while playing a game simoultaneously which a real gamer would never do in the first place, it's a little more future proof for games that come out with support for it toward the end of 2006 as quoted from one of the most renowned game programmers in the world Tim Sweeney.

I personally think you already answered your own question. If 2006 is the right date, you will be able to buy it much cheaper for the same processor if they are coming out now, or you can get something much faster for the same price as today's standards.

Just my opinion.

 

[Hacp]

So bascically what were saying is get the 3000+.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: ElTorrente
The x2 4800 is just BARELY slower than the supposedly uber fx57. The fx57 is clocked faster than it, and is the "ultimate" gaming cpu - and yet it only beats the slower clocked x2 4800 by a few frames per second in every game test.

This, of course, is on a benchmark machine with NOTHING else running and a totally fresh install - OFFLINE - in perfect conditions... and it's STILL only a few frames a second faster.

How about when you are online and your computer has to communicate with a server with 64 people online. Throw in Anti-virus, Anti-spyware, Firewall, TeamSpeak, GameSpy/All Seeing Eye, IE, profile managers for devices, pinging the server and sending TCP packets online, FRAPS, blah blah blah.. and you WILL see a big difference with an extra core!

It's just silly to think that hardcore gaming online and REAL WORLD computing is somehow faster on a single core!

Roger that.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: ElTorrente
The x2 4800 is just BARELY slower than the supposedly uber fx57. The fx57 is clocked faster than it, and is the "ultimate" gaming cpu - and yet it only beats the slower clocked x2 4800 by a few frames per second in every game test.

This, of course, is on a benchmark machine with NOTHING else running and a totally fresh install - OFFLINE - in perfect conditions... and it's STILL only a few frames a second faster.

How about when you are online and your computer has to communicate with a server with 64 people online. Throw in Anti-virus, Anti-spyware, Firewall, TeamSpeak, GameSpy/All Seeing Eye, IE, profile managers for devices, pinging the server and sending TCP packets online, FRAPS, blah blah blah.. and you WILL see a big difference with an extra core!

It's just silly to think that hardcore gaming online and REAL WORLD computing is somehow faster on a single core!

Roger that.

Yawn. If you want to waste your money fine. Just dont keep telling this guy to waste his cash.

 

[Muscles]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: ElTorrente
The x2 4800 is just BARELY slower than the supposedly uber fx57. The fx57 is clocked faster than it, and is the "ultimate" gaming cpu - and yet it only beats the slower clocked x2 4800 by a few frames per second in every game test.

This, of course, is on a benchmark machine with NOTHING else running and a totally fresh install - OFFLINE - in perfect conditions... and it's STILL only a few frames a second faster.

How about when you are online and your computer has to communicate with a server with 64 people online. Throw in Anti-virus, Anti-spyware, Firewall, TeamSpeak, GameSpy/All Seeing Eye, IE, profile managers for devices, pinging the server and sending TCP packets online, FRAPS, blah blah blah.. and you WILL see a big difference with an extra core!

It's just silly to think that hardcore gaming online and REAL WORLD computing is somehow faster on a single core!

Roger that.

I kind of disagree with this statement. Like I said in the original post barely anyone is going to be doing any encoding or equivalent while playing a game. And correct me if I'm wrong but if I have a bunch of firefox or IE windows open etc. in the background they aren't using any cpu power, only a little bit of memory.

 

[Budman]

Originally posted by: Bona Fide
My 2nd post? You mean the second post in this thread [my post]? I don't get what you mean.

Anyhow, Muscles, yes I have an X2. It's in my system, which you can look at by clicking the link in my sig. It's an X2 4400+ currently running just short of 2.6GHz.

For me your link in your sig doesnt work.
http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.aspx?id=31207 just sends me to My AnandTech.

on the other hand this link sends me to your rig http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.aspx?rigid=31207

notice the "rig" before the id=31207 ?
that's how to correctly link to your rig.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Muscles

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: ElTorrente
The x2 4800 is just BARELY slower than the supposedly uber fx57. The fx57 is clocked faster than it, and is the "ultimate" gaming cpu - and yet it only beats the slower clocked x2 4800 by a few frames per second in every game test.

This, of course, is on a benchmark machine with NOTHING else running and a totally fresh install - OFFLINE - in perfect conditions... and it's STILL only a few frames a second faster.

How about when you are online and your computer has to communicate with a server with 64 people online. Throw in Anti-virus, Anti-spyware, Firewall, TeamSpeak, GameSpy/All Seeing Eye, IE, profile managers for devices, pinging the server and sending TCP packets online, FRAPS, blah blah blah.. and you WILL see a big difference with an extra core!

It's just silly to think that hardcore gaming online and REAL WORLD computing is somehow faster on a single core!

Roger that.

I kind of disagree with this statement. Like I said in the original post barely anyone is going to be doing any encoding or equivalent while playing a game. And correct me if I'm wrong but if I have a bunch of firefox or IE windows open etc. in the background they aren't using any cpu power, only a little bit of memory.

Ya, Op, don't listen to these guys, just get an oced 3000+ with a tight graphics card. You'll save yourself tonsa cash and be glad about it.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Muscles

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: ElTorrente
The x2 4800 is just BARELY slower than the supposedly uber fx57. The fx57 is clocked faster than it, and is the "ultimate" gaming cpu - and yet it only beats the slower clocked x2 4800 by a few frames per second in every game test.

This, of course, is on a benchmark machine with NOTHING else running and a totally fresh install - OFFLINE - in perfect conditions... and it's STILL only a few frames a second faster.

How about when you are online and your computer has to communicate with a server with 64 people online. Throw in Anti-virus, Anti-spyware, Firewall, TeamSpeak, GameSpy/All Seeing Eye, IE, profile managers for devices, pinging the server and sending TCP packets online, FRAPS, blah blah blah.. and you WILL see a big difference with an extra core!

It's just silly to think that hardcore gaming online and REAL WORLD computing is somehow faster on a single core!

Roger that.

I kind of disagree with this statement. Like I said in the original post barely anyone is going to be doing any encoding or equivalent while playing a game. And correct me if I'm wrong but if I have a bunch of firefox or IE windows open etc. in the background they aren't using any cpu power, only a little bit of memory.

You see the benchmarks and the prices, its not my decision, I made mine based on my needs, figure it out for yourself for your needs. IMO if its a 100 dollar difference between a 3700+ and the DC 3800+ I would save a bit longer and get the dual core. I would never buy a single core CPU after using an X2

 

[Bona Fide]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: Muscles

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: ElTorrente
The x2 4800 is just BARELY slower than the supposedly uber fx57. The fx57 is clocked faster than it, and is the "ultimate" gaming cpu - and yet it only beats the slower clocked x2 4800 by a few frames per second in every game test.

This, of course, is on a benchmark machine with NOTHING else running and a totally fresh install - OFFLINE - in perfect conditions... and it's STILL only a few frames a second faster.

How about when you are online and your computer has to communicate with a server with 64 people online. Throw in Anti-virus, Anti-spyware, Firewall, TeamSpeak, GameSpy/All Seeing Eye, IE, profile managers for devices, pinging the server and sending TCP packets online, FRAPS, blah blah blah.. and you WILL see a big difference with an extra core!

It's just silly to think that hardcore gaming online and REAL WORLD computing is somehow faster on a single core!

Roger that.

I kind of disagree with this statement. Like I said in the original post barely anyone is going to be doing any encoding or equivalent while playing a game. And correct me if I'm wrong but if I have a bunch of firefox or IE windows open etc. in the background they aren't using any cpu power, only a little bit of memory.

You see the benchmarks and the prices, its not my decision, I made mine based on my needs, figure it out for yourself for your needs. IMO if its a 100 dollar difference between a 3700+ and the DC 3800+ I would save a bit longer and get the dual core. I would never buy a single core CPU after using an X2

:thumbsup:

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: Muscles

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: ElTorrente
The x2 4800 is just BARELY slower than the supposedly uber fx57. The fx57 is clocked faster than it, and is the "ultimate" gaming cpu - and yet it only beats the slower clocked x2 4800 by a few frames per second in every game test.

This, of course, is on a benchmark machine with NOTHING else running and a totally fresh install - OFFLINE - in perfect conditions... and it's STILL only a few frames a second faster.

How about when you are online and your computer has to communicate with a server with 64 people online. Throw in Anti-virus, Anti-spyware, Firewall, TeamSpeak, GameSpy/All Seeing Eye, IE, profile managers for devices, pinging the server and sending TCP packets online, FRAPS, blah blah blah.. and you WILL see a big difference with an extra core!

It's just silly to think that hardcore gaming online and REAL WORLD computing is somehow faster on a single core!

Roger that.

I kind of disagree with this statement. Like I said in the original post barely anyone is going to be doing any encoding or equivalent while playing a game. And correct me if I'm wrong but if I have a bunch of firefox or IE windows open etc. in the background they aren't using any cpu power, only a little bit of memory.

You see the benchmarks and the prices, its not my decision, I made mine based on my needs, figure it out for yourself for your needs. IMO if its a 100 dollar difference between a 3700+ and the DC 3800+ I would save a bit longer and get the dual core. I would never buy a single core CPU after using an X2

Seems like you got caught in the hype.

 

[Polish3d]

Someone pmed me and told me not to bother arguing with (what was it, oh yes) a 'retarded 14 year old girl' like you. (Ok I added the girl part.)

I can see why they said that

 

[bradley]

If you multitask a lot get the X2, if not, save your money. I'm not much of a gamer, but I'll personally never go back to single core. Dual core makes the computer experience so much more productive and enjoyable. My biggest concern was the added heat output, but it's really not even that bad.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: shoRunner
search cpu forums, some ppl have reported issues with certain games

If you read more, you will find that with the X2 driver installed, there are no **confirmed** problems (meaning more than one person having a problem. The only problem is if you are using win2k (like me) then you have to set affinity. I will never buy another single core, and I game a lot.

X2 is the way to go if you can afford it ! If not, get the 300 or 3200+ Venice.

 

[xTYBALTx]

This discussion reminds me of the 1GB vs 2BG memory discussions from two months ago. I only use my computer for games. Well, games and posting on AT. And Winamp. And AIM. But other than that, games.

And you can bet I'll be going X2 soon as I get back from Europe.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

From the SuperPI 8m thread, single cores seem to rule Super PI




TOP AMD DUAL CORE (Simultaneous Instances Only)

1. chinkgai: 5m 12s AMD A64 X2 4400+ Toledo @ 2894.01 Mhz / Ram 1024MB (DC) 263.1 Mhz 2-2-2-5 / ????
2. dnavarro: 5m 22s AMD A64 X2 3800+ Manchester @ 3000.8 Mhz / Ram ?#?# (DC) 300 Mhz 2-4-3-8 / SSE3 Patched Pi
3. michaelpatrick33: 5m 57s AMD A64 X2 4400+ Toledo @ 2750.2 Mhz / Ram 2048MB (DC) 1.5-3-2 / SSE3 Patched Pi
4. Duvie: 6m 00s AMD A64 X2 4400+ Toledo @ 2640.2 Mhz / Ram #?#? (DC) 3.4.4.10 / SSE3 Patched Pi
5. McGeyser: 6m 04s AMD A64 X2 4400+ Toledo @ 2607.2 Mhz / Ram 2048MB (DC) 2.5-3-2 / SSE3 Patched Pi
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.



TOP AMD SINGLE CORE

1. eva2000: 4m 55s AMD A64 FX-57 San Diego @ 3120 Mhz / Ram 1024 Mb (DC) 240 Mhz 2-2-2-5 / SuperPi Mod 1.4
2. GuitarDaddy: 5m 26s AMD A64 3700+ San Diego @ 2815 MHz / Ram 1024Mb 234.6 Mhz (DC) 234.6 Mhz 2-3-2-7 / SSE3 Patched Pi
3. coomar: 5m 28s AMD A64 3000+ Venice @ 2700 Mhz / Ram 1024Mb (DC) 245.5 Mhz 2-2-2-6 / SSE3 Patched Pi
4. rise4310: 5m 42s AMD A64 3700+ San Diego @ 2750 Mhz / Ram 2048 Mb (DC) 250 Mhz 2.5-3-3-8 / SuperPi Mod 1.4
5. MADMAX23: 5m 44s AMD A64 3200+ Winchester @ 2628 Mhz / Ram 1024Mb (DC) 239 Mhz 2.5-3-3-7 / SSE2 Patched Pi
6. n7: 5m 51s AMD A64 3200+ Venice @ 2600 Mhz / Ram 2048Mb (DC) 216 Mhz 2.5-3-2-10 / SSE3 Patched Pi
7. Shenkoa: 5m 51s AMD A64 3200+ Venice & 2600 MHz / Ram 1024 MB (DC) 216 MHz 2.5-3-3 SSE3 Patched Pi
8. RichUK: 5m 58s AMD A64 3500+ Winchester @ 2550 Mhz / Ram 1024Mb (DC) 255 Mhz 2.5-4-3-7 / SSE2 Patched Pi
9. CheesePoofs: 6m 21s Athlon 64 Winchester @ 2457.2 Mhz / Ram 1024MB (DC) / SSE2 Patched Pi
10.

 

[ElTorrente]

^ (Simultaneous Instances Only)?

The Pentium M kicks butt in this test also, but that fact doesn't make me want one.