Any Gamer go Dual Core and regret it?

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: Pr0d1gy
The point is none of us care what you have to say about it. I can play games on a P3, does that mean I should or would want to? We're men, we like toys that we can play with.

Oh and my 3500+ doesn't run BF2, Ventrilo, WinAmp, BF2CC, etc. seamlessly either.

who cares if you care what i say. my point is correct.

and there is something wrong with your 3500+ if it can't do that, what video card do you have in it?

 

[rise]

bump

Biased or not, beta or no, there?s a lot to like about the latest patch for Quake 4, whether you have an Athlon 64 X2 or a dual-core/Hyper-Threaded Intel chip. The two architectures each pick up phenomenal performance gains.

 

[gotfrag]

i have a x2 3800
game with it and love it...'nuff said

 

[rise]

lets hope intel keeps pushing them to make more threaded games/apps. be nice if amd helped out to

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Everybody is always debating the gaming performance of CPU's,

In the vast majority of games the perormance is 90% GPU and 10% CPU, unless you've got a really old/slow CPU. If gaming is the main priority get the cheapest modern CPU (3000+) and spend your extra money on a better videocard.

Case in point:

I built my son's new gaming rig with a stock 2.0 3200+ and a GTO2 and unlocked it to 16pipes and overclocked it to X850XTPE speeds and it absolutely destroys my machine in all games. Mine has a SD3700+ o/c'd to 2.8ghz, with a 6600gt at 570/1150. My CPU clocked 800mhz higher and with 512mb more cache doesn't even come close to making up the difference between the GTO2 and the 6600gt (both overclocked)

 

[Boris teh Spider]

I have a 3800+ X2 and unfortunately I got a CCBWE 0541 which is the worst stepping for OCing yet. With my XP-90 I can only get 2.5 ghz @ 1.52 VCore but I run it @ 2.4 @ 1.45 VCore to keep the temps down. Anyway it is MUCH smooter in pretty much everything, most noticably multi-tasking and alt-tabbing out of games (which pretty much multitasking, heh) Anyway I don't regret my decision to go dual core, it just sucks that I got a bad stepping but to tell you the truth you probably aren't going to notice any difference between 2.4 and 2.6 or 2.7 or whatever in anything other than benchmarks and possibly HL2. HL2 is the only thing other than benchmarks that I saw jump up noticably from OCing, but to me it was worth, and why wouldn't I OC? Anyway I would say go dual core, get an Opteron 165 if you can find one for a good price (although recently it seems that the OC's on Opty 165's are getting to be about the same or actually worse than the X2's) or get a 3800+, and just pray when you open the box you don't get an 0541. Even if you do, you will still be able to get at least 2.4Ghz and that's a $630 processor for $320... Not bad...

 

[rise]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
In the vast majority of games the perormance is 90% GPU and 10% CPU, unless you've got a really old/slow CPU. If gaming is the main priority get the cheapest modern CPU (3000+) and spend your extra money on a better videocard.

well, yeah....

even the linked article show gpu limitation at the higher resolutions.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: rise4310
bump

Biased or not, beta or no, there?s a lot to like about the latest patch for Quake 4, whether you have an Athlon 64 X2 or a dual-core/Hyper-Threaded Intel chip. The two architectures each pick up phenomenal performance gains.

yup, it has begun