Are dualcores a MUST???

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
P

pentiumobile

Member
Dec 27, 2004
167
0
0
Last time I read about hardware was back on January, so I am really outdated. I am truly unbiased, in no way Pentiumobile supports one product because of ?hypes? or ?ads?.

Here are my questions:

Everybody here supports AMD, I am on that direction, but I don?t really know what type of CPU fits my needs.

I will like my PC to be balanced, since I do multitasking and gaming.

The thing is:

AMD X2 is way better than single cores?

Is it worth to give up a good video card to get a 3800+ 2X CPU?

Or is better to get a single CPU (ex: 3200+ 64) but a good Video Card.???

Remember that I don?t do gaming everyday, but on some times (vacations) I love to play games maxxed out.

I have 1,300$ to build a PC, I love Flight Simulation and FS 2006 will arrive someday.

My doubt is that if I MUST have a dual core over a single core, given the fact that 2X works like single cores most of the time.

Will a single core get useless one year from now?

Does those dualcores and 2GB of RAM are a necessity???

Pentiumobile.


 
P

pentiumobile

Member
Dec 27, 2004
167
0
0
Lets say your rig...

How much will it cost??

Does it moves all right??

PD: I have a Dell 8200, so anything will be an improvement
 
T

The Green Bean

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2003
6,506
7
81
My rig costs about $1100 minus the casing...Its plenty fast for games, but in windows its limited by only 1 CPU. Currenty at 100% usage, I could definately use one more core :p ...

If you are getting a new rig, I say go for the dual core 3800+ which will cost you a couple of hundred bucks more but its a good investment.
 
P

Pix3lDezigner

Member
Aug 30, 2005
109
0
0
Thanks to a helpful member here, I just upgraded and didn't have to sacrifice a "better" video card to get an X2. You can get this board: ASRock ULi Motherboard

With this board you can use an AGP and/or a PCi-E card, and I was able to keep my BFG 6800 Ultra OC and still take advantage of an X2 CPU. I really wanted an X2 for this upgrade since I will primarily do graphic design and gaming would be secondary for me. I also multitask. When I first heard ASRock, I had no clue about the company. But I found out it's Asus' line of value motherboards. But according to AnandTech's review of the board, they loved it and said it's amazing for the price, and it overclocks surprisingly well. I don't have a link to that review handy, but I'm sure you can find it. Hopefully this will help your decision, because it certainly helped me. It probably saved me around $500.
 
M

Mojoed

Diamond Member
Jul 20, 2004
4,473
1
81
Dual-core CPU's are cool, but I don't need one just yet. I'm holding off until Vista ships to get my first dual-core CPU.
 
Markbnj

Markbnj

Elite Member <br>Moderator Emeritus
Moderator
Sep 16, 2005
15,682
14
81
www.markbetz.net
Before you decide what weight to give the "not unless you multitask," and "not for gaming" advice, check out the tests I ran in this thread:

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=28&threadid=1702435&enterthread=y

At least for CoD and BF2 the tests show that the dual core is of significant benefit. Without it a single core would be saturated from time to time running either of these games. The other apps I tested also show the benefit. Would like to see some folks test other apps/games and post the results.

People who talk about "whether you multitask" when assessing the value of a dual core don't understand how Windows works at a system level, and obviously don't own a dual core :).

As far as I am concerned this is the bottom line: dual core processors have rendered single core processors obsolete from a leading edge performance perspective.
 
P

pentiumobile

Member
Dec 27, 2004
167
0
0
So basically i can buy a crappy video card and spend my bucks on the DCore, then on Christmas buy a top of the line VCard??? You recomend SINGLE OR SLI MOBO???

But my main doubt is:

Is Dual Core "that good", or just another hype?
 
bob4432

bob4432

Lifer
Sep 6, 2003
11,727
46
91
dual core is good, it is basically just a dual processor setup in 1 cpu. it is not the intel hyper-threading. so you need to ask yourself, would you build a dual processor machine?

also, what do you consider multitasking?

imho, dual cores are excellent for far less people than actually have them. running work, firefox and aim in not multitasking for a computer. most of these people would have bought a dual processor but for some reason are all over the dual cores, maybe it is the price but probably just the fact that say they have one.

my current rig in sig works fine and can play all the current games at good resolutions and framerates with the detail on high, and it is 1.5yrs old (with the exception of the gpu).

there is a lot of hype around the dual cores and just year or so ago if you would have built a dual processor rig most people would have said "why do you need a server or workstation" and now these are in everybody's homes not being used at all near their full potential.

remember also that a a64 3000venice can be o/c pretty high and is relatively cheap, match that with a decent board (the new ati and uli based boards are giving nvidia a serious run for their money which should drive prices down :)) 2GB of ram (2x1GB), a decent new gen 7200rpm hdd and a 7800gt and you will have on kick a$$ rig that won't break the bank. sli is nice but by the time you need to add another video card their will be a couple generations newer ones and they 1 of them will beat 2 of the ones you have. so, unless you need the options of the sli board, i would not get sli unless you plan on playing games @ 1920x1440 with 8AA on.

again, this is just my opinion and i would like to know what programs you use before recommending any further.
 
H

hurtstotalktoyou

Platinum Member
Mar 24, 2005
2,055
9
81
It depends on your financial situation. A good rule of thumb is to think of what you'd have to sacrifice to upgrade your computer. For example, when I upgraded, I had about $500 in the bank. Now, I could either use that $500 for PC parts, or put it toward school and my dying car, which is required to get to school and work. So, I decided to spend $50--except it ended up being $100 due to a couple silly building mistakes.

You should think about it the same way. What are the benefits of upgrading? Do you want new parts so you can do more, or so you can do what you do now faster? Is it worth the cost of the parts? What could you buy, instead? A cell-phone? Pay off debts? Investments?

An X2 is probably not going to be much faster than an A64 of the same rating. Unless you're somewhat wealthy, I'd stick with something more mainstream.
 
J

johnnqq

Golden Member
May 30, 2005
1,659
0
0
i'm getting a 3000+, and when prices fall i'll buy the 3800 when it's about 200ish. it's not worth the money yet if you're on a budget like me.
 
O

orangat

Golden Member
Jun 7, 2004
1,579
0
0
Read this review and it should be clear what would be best for you.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410&p=1

Single core AMD cpu's are still the best buy for average people and gamers if you look at the benchmarks.

AMDX2 cpu's shine in multimedia apps and video encoding apps and finally overtakes Intel cpus in that area.

And no, single core AMD/Intel cpus will not be rendered obsolete overnight. Developing multithreaded games is difficult and will take a revolution in the Windows OS model as well as game development. If you get a single core now, you'll definitely still be safe.
 
Markbnj

Markbnj

Elite Member <br>Moderator Emeritus
Moderator
Sep 16, 2005
15,682
14
81
www.markbetz.net
I agree that they are the best buy for "average people," whatever they are. I assume they are people who need basic applications and don't want to spend any more money than necessary.

For gamers? No way, unless it is a funds limitation. If you play 3D games in Windows get dual core.
 
O

orangat

Golden Member
Jun 7, 2004
1,579
0
0
Originally posted by: Markbnj
I agree that they are the best buy for "average people," whatever they are. I assume they are people who need basic applications and don't want to spend any more money than necessary.

For gamers? No way, unless it is a funds limitation. If you play 3D games in Windows get dual core.
Click to expand...


Why no way for gamers? Look at the benchmarks:-
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410&p=7
A slower single core 3500+ is either beating or competitive with the dual core 4200+ in game benchmarks.
 
Markbnj

Markbnj

Elite Member <br>Moderator Emeritus
Moderator
Sep 16, 2005
15,682
14
81
www.markbetz.net
I make two points about those benches: 1) in the majority of games the dual core is equal to or slightly better than the single core, and the dual core is better for virtually everything else you do under Windows; and 2) all those benchmarks measure is framerate, which is more dependent on the graphics hardware and ring 0 drivers than on the CPU. Framerate is not the only thing that is important in gaming performance. There is a lot of phyics and sound processing that is also CPU intensive, and lag in these areas can make the game choppy without affecting the framerate at all.

Look at these test results...

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=28&threadid=1702435&enterthread=y

There is no question that these graphs show BF2 and CoD, at least, utilizing both cores significantly.
 
O

orangat

Golden Member
Jun 7, 2004
1,579
0
0
Even of both cpus measure up almost the same in game benchmarks, the faster 4200+ has a higher rating and costs alot more than a single core 3500+. Isn't that the most important thing?

Your graphs show that AMD X2s are great at extracting parallelization (unlike Intel which has a horrible dual core architecture). It doesn't measure improvements in choppy areas at all.

What we need is a graphical benchmark which show the max/min framerate in several games.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom