Any Gamer go Dual Core and regret it?

[Muscles]

I've been putting off upgrading for over a week now because I can't make a decision. Should I get the 3700+ San Diego or get the X2 3800+. I'm worried that I'm going to run into those issues people are having with games like having to set the affinity and all that other crap everytime you load up a game. What a hassle. What I find strange though is I can't find a single reputable review site like Anandtech who can corroborate these issues which makes me think people are having these issues because they don't know what they're doing and have their system setup wrong. I could totally be mistaken on that but I don't understand why there aren't any articles about it.

Games I will or will be playing in the future: CS:S, Quake 4, Quake Wars, AoE 3, Serious Sam 2. All I'll be doing on the new system is gaming and pretty much nothing else except maybe winamp and web browsing. My old system (the one I'm on now) will be doing all the DVD burning, file serving, web browsing, etc.. Specs of old system:

P4 3.0C
Asus P4C800-E Deluxe
Radeon 9800 Pro 128mb
Fortron 400W PSU
OCZ PC3700 Gold Rev.2
WD 80GB SE 7200RPM w/8mb cache
Pioneer DVD-RW DVR-105
Sony DVD-ROM

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.

Fact is comparison between these two processors on paper should make my choice easy but it isn't. Please, any gamers or the like with experience help me make a decision.

 

[Bona Fide]

X2 is not just about multitasking. It is about an EXTREMELY smoother computing experience.

Ask any X2 user and they'll tell you the same thing. X2's are faster than their single-core counterparts because one core can handle Windows processes while the other core handles your applications.

As far as which one to go with, 3800+ X2 hands down. Get an XP-90 cooler and you should be able to get past 2.4GHz

 

[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?

 

[JD50]

Check his sig. I just got one for gaming, but I havn't put my new rig together yet. The 3700 might be a tiny bit faster for gaming, but you probably won't notice the difference. The X2 3800 might end up being faster, because of all the background apps that it can handle with the extra core, you will have one processor dedicated to just the game you are playing.

 

[Muscles]

Ah yea. The link to his sig wasn't working but you can get to it after manually doing a search for his name. Sorry Bona Fide. Can you people with Dual Cores comment on the gaming issues I referred to in my original post?

 

[Hacp]

Venice 3000+. Seriously, after having an x2, I appreciate it for being able to encode DVds/Mpeg files (I do that alot now), but its currently not worth it. As for a smooth experience, I have a 2.0 Northwood no Ht 533 FSB and its pretty smooth to me .

Also, I reccomend 2GB of ram for x2s. I have 1GB, and i'm finding that sometimes it gets a little laggy. Maybe its because of firefox memory leak though heh.

 

[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+

 

[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.

 

[Polish3d]

A single core at the same speed as a dual core has shown to be almost/if not ALWAYS FASTER in gaming than the single core equivalent...and this is on a clean install with few background processes:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410">Dual core always faster than single core at equivalent clockspeeds in gaming</a>

I'm sick of hearing people say "Well DC is nice but my single core will own it in gaming" when it doesn't just not 'own' but actually loses at = clockspeeds. (1mb versions anyway)

Note: For some reason it doesn't link, go to anandtech's 4800+ and 4200+ Performance Preview and click on the gaming benchmarks.

Cliff notes, Athlon 4800+ @ 2.4 beats single core 4000+ @ 2.4 in every single game

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Frackal
A single core at the same speed as a dual core has shown to be almost/if not ALWAYS FASTER in gaming than the single core equivalent...and this is on a clean install with few background processes:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410&p=7">Dual core always faster than single core at equivalent clockspeeds in gaming</a>

I'm sick of hearing people say "Well DC is nice but my single core will own it in gaming" when it doesn't just not 'own' but actually loses at = clockspeeds. (1mb versions anyway)

Ya right. AMD admits that in single threaded applications, single core processors will perform faster.

 

[Polish3d]

Look for yourself dude

 

[Polish3d]

BTW, if the situation were reversed and AMD said dual core would be faster at single thread but benchmarks showed otherwise I doubt you'd be like "Well despite the benchmarks AMD said it was faster this way so it must be."

 

[Hacp]

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

Need I say more??

 

[Polish3d]

Read man, I SAID the 1mb versions

(1mb versions anyway)

 

[Hacp]

"Dual core always faster than single core at equivalent clockspeeds in gaming"+

Originally posted by you. Thank you have a nice day.

Ow ya, have you ever heard of margin of error???

 

[Polish3d]

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

Need I say more??

What are you doing anyway?

The 4000+ is 2.4 w/ 1mb cache , they are comparing it to the 4200+ @ 2.2 w/ 512kb cache

It's not even an equal comparison for what we're discussing ... which is single threaded gaming perf. at EQUAL CLOCKSPEEDS. No kidding the 2.4 w/ 1mb is faster, but it ain't faster than the dual core equivalent

 

[shoRunner]

search cpu forums, some ppl have reported issues with certain games

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Hacp
"Dual core always faster than single core at equivalent clockspeeds in gaming"+

Originally posted by you. Thank you have a nice day.

You are a freaking %$#@

This is the actual quote:

" single core at the same speed as a dual core has shown to be almost/if not ALWAYS FASTER in gaming than the single core equivalent"

That means, almost always if not always.

And then accounting for the diff. between 4200 and 4800:

"I'm sick of hearing people say "Well DC is nice but my single core will own it in gaming" when it doesn't just not 'own' but actually loses at = clockspeeds. (1mb versions anyway) "


Have a nice freakin day yourself

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Frackal

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

Need I say more??

What are you doing anyway?

The 4000+ is 2.4 w/ 1mb cache , they are comparing it to the 4200+ @ 2.2 w/ 512kb cache

It's not even an equal comparison for what we're discussing ... which is single threaded gaming perf. at EQUAL CLOCKSPEEDS. No kidding the 2.4 w/ 1mb is faster, but it ain't faster than the dual core equivalent

Ok you got me there. Now look at your article 2.2 Vs 2.2 512MB. I saw your article and didn't want to type alot so just did the 4200+ search.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Hacp
"Dual core always faster than single core at equivalent clockspeeds in gaming"+

Originally posted by you. Thank you have a nice day.

Ow ya, have you ever heard of margin of error???

So margin of error shows 4800+ winning EVERY single time but WAIT, that's not true! It's just a margin of error and the 4000+ is actually faster!

LOLOL

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Frackal
A single core at the same speed as a dual core has shown to be almost/if not ALWAYS FASTER in gaming than the single core equivalent...and this is on a clean install with few background processes:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410">[B</a>

I'm sick of hearing people say "Well DC is nice but my single core will own it in gaming" when it doesn't just not 'own' but actually loses at = clockspeeds. (1mb versions anyway)

Note: For some reason it doesn't link, go to anandtech's 4800+ and 4200+ Performance Preview and click on the gaming benchmarks.

Cliff notes, Athlon 4800+ @ 2.4 beats single core 4000+ @ 2.4 in every single game

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Frackal

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

Need I say more??

What are you doing anyway?

The 4000+ is 2.4 w/ 1mb cache , they are comparing it to the 4200+ @ 2.2 w/ 512kb cache

It's not even an equal comparison for what we're discussing ... which is single threaded gaming perf. at EQUAL CLOCKSPEEDS. No kidding the 2.4 w/ 1mb is faster, but it ain't faster than the dual core equivalent

Ok you got me there. Now look at your article 2.2 Vs 2.2 512MB. I saw your article and didn't want to type alot so just did the 4200+ search.

For the 3rd time I accounted for the fact that it was only true all the time in the 1mb versions, check the post above yours

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Frackal
A single core at the same speed as a dual core has shown to be almost/if not ALWAYS FASTER in gaming than the single core equivalent...and this is on a clean install with few background processes:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410">https://Dual core always faster than single core at equivalent clockspeeds in gaming</"></a>

I'm sick of hearing people say "Well DC is nice but my single core will own it in gaming" when it doesn't just not 'own' but actually loses at = clockspeeds. (1mb versions anyway)

Note: For some reason it doesn't link, go to anandtech's 4800+ and 4200+ Performance Preview and click on the gaming benchmarks.

Cliff notes, Athlon 4800+ @ 2.4 beats single core 4000+ @ 2.4 in every single game

It's ok, you're just wrong on each point you made because you didn't look closely enough and no amount of obfuscation will change that

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Frackal
A single core at the same speed as a dual core has shown to be almost/if not ALWAYS FASTER in gaming than the single core equivalent...and this is on a clean install with few background processes:

Dual core always faster than single core at equivalent clockspeeds in gaming

I'm sick of hearing people say "Well DC is nice but my single core will own it in gaming" when it doesn't just not 'own' but actually loses at = clockspeeds. (1mb versions anyway)

Ya right. AMD admits that in single threaded applications, single core processors will perform faster.

Your post sucked. couldn't do it correctly so I deleted the Link all together.

 

[Polish3d]

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