- Jul 16, 2003
- 424
- 13
- 81
I'm surprised no one has really commented on the affinity issues I was asking about in the original post. I've read every post in the thread though and there are some interesting arguments. Unfortunately I still haven't made a decision yet though but when I do I'll let everyone know my thoughts.
Originally posted by: bradley
Originally posted by: Hacp
Originally posted by: Bona Fide
Just as much of a knack as he thinks you have for trolling.
Lol. Nice joke there. Just a buncha AMD fanboys caught up in hype.
I'll do you one better. I go back and forth regularly between my X2 rig and my mom's Venice 3000+ rig and notice a huge improvement in multi-tasking. I'll even go far to say, just place a monitor and mouse in front of me, and I can EASILY tell you which one has the X2 inside. Yep, the difference is that stark and noticeable.
I understand why someone wouldn't want to pay a premium for an X2, and would even wait for some hefty pricedrops. Otherwise, like all logical progressions in computing, eventually, you will be assimilated to dual or multiple cores.... and won't give it a second thought. Although, I do know someone who only finally upgraded from Windows 3.11 around the time of Windows ME; he was a very stubborn person.
I sold someone a PC that was upgrading from a Pentium 60 I believe. I sold him a dual 2.4ghz xeon. Talk about an improvement. :Q
This isn't the only spot where Dual Core shines. Multi-tasking is just one aspect of it. If ANY encoding is being done, with or without playing games, it will run faster on a dual core since the majority of encoding apps seem to be multithreaded. And the difference is Noticable.
If you run any Photo Editing software and apply filters, there is a noticable difference with dual core.
General responsiveness is also much qucker with the X2. Especially when playing games. I play MMOGs a lot, and I can pop over to a web browser when I need to much quicker on my 4400+ than I ever could on my 3500+. In Battlefield 2, I can pop tab out of the game to start Ventrilo or Teamspeak with no problem at all.
I've been extremely happy with my X2. The only "problems" I have are that Sony Online games (everquest, EQ2) get flakey so I need to set affinity before I play the game. Every Other game I play doesn't have any issue.
And as people have stated, Yes a dual core will run most apps/games faster than a single core of the same speed and cache. And NVidia has already announced that they will be releasing multithreaded video drivers and expect gaming performance to increase 5 to 30% on dual core machines as a result. When that driver is released, Dual Core PC's with NVidia boards will probably be faster than any single core PC in gaming.
I sold someone a PC that was upgrading from a Pentium 60 I believe. I sold him a dual 2.4ghz xeon. Talk about an improvement. :Q[/quote]
Your story trumps mine.
Maybe we should arrange a meeting between these two. I bet they would get along famously. I see all these comparisons between equal clock speeds/cache.
Shouldn't CPU's of similar price be compared.
An A64 4000+ is $368 at ZZF and Newegg, and the X2 4800+ is $884 at both stores (and even more at most other places).
If I'm a gamer and I pay an extra $500+ for 1.2 FPS, you'd probably see me running around with a Doritos bag over my head screaming "NACHOS".
(In other words, I've lost my fvcking mind).
These = speed/cache comparisons started by Frackal and supported by others are retarded.
Shouldn't CPU's of similar price be compared.
An A64 4000+ is $368 at ZZF and Newegg, and the X2 4800+ is $884 at both stores (and even more at most other places).
If I'm a gamer and I pay an extra $500+ for 1.2 FPS, you'd probably see me running around with a Doritos bag over my head screaming "NACHOS".
(In other words, I've lost my fvcking mind).
These = speed/cache comparisons started by Frackal and supported by others are retarded.
Any comparison probably wouldn't be adequate enough considering X2's true speed potential hasn't been fully realized -- same thing could probably said for 32-bit vs. 64-bit. Although, I'd say any valid comparison should be made perhaps using current benchmarked cpus of equivalent speed.
You're fvcking retarded. People here keep claiming a single core will "own" a dual core at equivalent clockspeeds and I showed why that is far from accurate. Don't like it? Blame the people who keep proclaiming their oc'ed 3000+'s will own an X2
Okey you kids, how many times do I have to tell you to stay off the computer when it's past your bedtime? GO TO BED!................. NOW! Don't make me come in there. I've got my father's very own razor blade strap......... Honey, beat the children.
[Wish I could afford an X2... zzzzzzzzzz]
[Wish I could afford an X2... zzzzzzzzzz]
Saga
Banned
- Feb 18, 2005
- 2,718
- 1
- 0
How does that benchmark even matter? They took a stock 4200+ and a stock 4000+. They then overclocked a 4200+ and did not compare an overclocked 4000+ (mine runs 2.8+ very easy).
So essentially, in that link, the 4000+ always beats the 4200+ when both are stock. It tries to glorify it by overclocking the 4200+ without comparing an overclocked 4000+ - because if they did that the 4000+ would still be better overclocked.
Stupid comparison when trying to convince someone to buy a processor. "Well this one overclocked beats this other one stock". Can we say no sh!t? Compare them realistically then try to convince me.
Actually Hacp was defending the same position you are. His point was showing that an X2 of equal speed does not always beat a single core CPU as Frackal had suggested.
Originally posted by: 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.
Yeah, when in the heck are they ever going to fix the memory problems with Firefox?
It's too bad these threads get destroyed by petty bickering... Make your point (ONCE) and leave it!
I am an X2 gamer and I must say that the thing absolutely rocks! I also have 2GB of RAM which I think is also essential for my situation. The key benefit to gaming, as others have pointed out, is that before you start a game, you no longer need to bring up task manager and start going killing all the background processes in order to keep your CPU clean for gaming. Furthermore, gone are the days of having to go through countless XP system tweaks to optimize the performance of Windows. After I boot, I have about 45 processes running (everything from system monitoring tools to my phone sync manager, to IM, etc.). I can just fire up a game without touching any of it, and get the CPU performance as if I had absolutely NO background tasks running.
Having dual monitors helps even further... you can run a walk-through and system monitoring on one screen while playing on the other - all without impacting game performance one bit.
Dual cores rock and are the future for a damn good reason! Parallelism is the future of increasing computer performance - end of story. Dual channel memory, dual graphics cards, dual cores... get use to it!
I am an X2 gamer and I must say that the thing absolutely rocks! I also have 2GB of RAM which I think is also essential for my situation. The key benefit to gaming, as others have pointed out, is that before you start a game, you no longer need to bring up task manager and start going killing all the background processes in order to keep your CPU clean for gaming. Furthermore, gone are the days of having to go through countless XP system tweaks to optimize the performance of Windows. After I boot, I have about 45 processes running (everything from system monitoring tools to my phone sync manager, to IM, etc.). I can just fire up a game without touching any of it, and get the CPU performance as if I had absolutely NO background tasks running.
Having dual monitors helps even further... you can run a walk-through and system monitoring on one screen while playing on the other - all without impacting game performance one bit.
Dual cores rock and are the future for a damn good reason! Parallelism is the future of increasing computer performance - end of story. Dual channel memory, dual graphics cards, dual cores... get use to it!
if price is issue, wait and get dual-core.
if price isn't issue, get dual-core.
lol, i have an fx-55, and it rocks, but i think i should have waited and gotten the 4800+ when it came back into stock. I play bf2 1600x1200 max everything sli8x aa at about 85 fps, but if i try to alt-tab out of bf2, i ueusally end up having to restart my computer... (other games such as cs:s are better about that). My work compy is a 3.2e p4, 6800gt, and 1 gb 400 ram, and i am going to upgrade (keeping the intel/AMD balance going) and get a 3.2 p Dual, ddr2 800 (2 GB) and the r520 or r580 (xt).
My point is that dual-core really is the future of computing (just look at the next-gen consoles,btw) and a cpu is such a price impact that you aren't just going to upgrade to a different cpu, really, you want to get what you want to get, really...
if price isn't issue, get dual-core.
lol, i have an fx-55, and it rocks, but i think i should have waited and gotten the 4800+ when it came back into stock. I play bf2 1600x1200 max everything sli8x aa at about 85 fps, but if i try to alt-tab out of bf2, i ueusally end up having to restart my computer... (other games such as cs:s are better about that). My work compy is a 3.2e p4, 6800gt, and 1 gb 400 ram, and i am going to upgrade (keeping the intel/AMD balance going) and get a 3.2 p Dual, ddr2 800 (2 GB) and the r520 or r580 (xt).
My point is that dual-core really is the future of computing (just look at the next-gen consoles,btw) and a cpu is such a price impact that you aren't just going to upgrade to a different cpu, really, you want to get what you want to get, really...
frackal. you love anandtech's articles so much. here's something quoted from an article:
"It performs about like a similar speed single core in gaming and 3D workstation tasks, which means it is a little slower than the 4000+ in these heavily single-threaded tasks. If you are a gamer, and that is all you care about on your PC, then the Dual-Core processors will hold no advantage for you over the current single-core models. Performance does not suffer to any great extent compared to single-core, but you need another use for dual-core to tip the scales in the more expensive dual-core direction."
<a href="http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2452&p=7">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2452&p=7</a>
NO ADVANTAGE for gaming.
"It performs about like a similar speed single core in gaming and 3D workstation tasks, which means it is a little slower than the 4000+ in these heavily single-threaded tasks. If you are a gamer, and that is all you care about on your PC, then the Dual-Core processors will hold no advantage for you over the current single-core models. Performance does not suffer to any great extent compared to single-core, but you need another use for dual-core to tip the scales in the more expensive dual-core direction."
<a href="http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2452&p=7">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2452&p=7</a>
NO ADVANTAGE for gaming.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter