CPU Decision to cut down build cost

[ferna084]

This is my current shopping cart in newegg.com:

Western Digital Caviar SE16 WD2500KS 250GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive - OEM
ViewSonic VX922 Black/Silver 19" 2ms LCD Monitor - Retail
MSI K9N Neo-F Socket AM2 NVIDIA nForce 550 MCP ATX AMD Motherboard - Retail
XFX PV-T73G-UDD3 Geforce 7600GT 256MB GDDR3 PCI Express x16 Video Card - Retail
MD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ Windsor 2.0GHz Socket AM2 Dual Core Processor Model ADA3800IAA5CU - Retail
CORSAIR ValueSelect 1GB 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 667 (PC2 5300) System Memory Model VS1GB667D2 - Retail

with other misc stuff comes out too $846... but I have a $750ish limit. Now I was thinking of bumping down to a AMD Athlon 64 3200+ which would put me in my budget but I was wondering if it will drastically decrease my gaming. I plan on mostly playing BF2 & 2142, Dark Age of Camelot and Oblivion.

 

[chairbornrangerx]

well I wouldn't say it'd DRASTICALLY decrease gaming, but its definitely gonna be slower. Not only are you going from dual core to single core, but it has less L1 and L2 cache. In the long run you have to ask yourself if its worth the money you'll be the one gaming

 

[DaveSimmons]

Spend a liitle extra for a 3500+ and it will be faster in many games than the X2 3800+ at stock speed.

 

[ferna084]

How come the 3500+ is faster than the dual core one? Sorry i've been away from PC hardware for a while

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: ferna084
How come the 3500+ is faster than the dual core one? Sorry i've been away from PC hardware for a while

Because most games don't use the second core yet. Oblivion does a little but most others do not.

 

[chairbornrangerx]

thats not really true, dual core at the same MHz is just as fast and FASTER than a single core in my opinion, one core can handle some of the windows requests while the other core does all your gaming crunches. Believe me my dual core helps with gaming, my load times are faster with my X2 4400+ than if I was running a single core.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: chairbornrangerx
thats not really true, dual core at the same MHz is just as fast and FASTER than a single core in my opinion, one core can handle some of the windows requests while the other core does all your gaming crunches. Believe me my dual core helps with gaming, my load times are faster with my X2 4400+ than if I was running a single core.

3500+ is 2.2 GHz while X2 3800+ is only 2.0 GHz. 3500+ is $60 cheaper. This is a budget build.

Yes, an X2 4200+ is faster than a 3500+, for $90 more.

 

[orangat]

Originally posted by: ferna084
This is my current shopping cart in newegg.com:
.................
with other misc stuff comes out too $846... but I have a $750ish limit. Now I was thinking of bumping down to a AMD Athlon 64 3200+ which would put me in my budget but I was wondering if it will drastically decrease my gaming. I plan on mostly playing BF2 & 2142, Dark Age of Camelot and Oblivion.

Probably not since most games are not multithreaded.
See this article -
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTAwMiw4LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

But games which are multithreaded like Quake4 do show a big difference in performance. But since most games are gpu limited anyway, the difference becomes insignificant at high res.

 

[chairbornrangerx]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: chairbornrangerx
thats not really true, dual core at the same MHz is just as fast and FASTER than a single core in my opinion, one core can handle some of the windows requests while the other core does all your gaming crunches. Believe me my dual core helps with gaming, my load times are faster with my X2 4400+ than if I was running a single core.

3500+ is 2.2 GHz while X2 3800+ is only 2.0 GHz. 3500+ is $60 cheaper. This is a budget build.

Yes, an X2 4200+ is faster than a 3500+, for $90 more.

I was stating that two processors of the same speed, one single core, another dual core, the dual core will out perform the single core.... I didn't mention anything about prices, I know dual cores are more expensive and this was a budget build. I want the guy to know single core wont' give the same performance.

 

[Skeeedunt]

It will marginally decrease your gaming performance, if at all.

 

[deadseasquirrel]

Yes, in the future, more games will be dual-core aware. However, for the games you play right now, you won't notice a difference from a 3200+ or even a 4400+ X2. At your resolution, the GPU is going to be doing most of the work. That being said, Quake 4 shows a good 30% increase in performance with the same clock speed on a dual-core chip (i.e. a 2ghz single vs a 2ghz dual) at 1280x1024. That's impressive. Hopefully, developers will be able to continue that in the future. Right now, Q4 is the only one. When a game comes out that takes advantage of it and is worthwhile to you, then upgrade. But, for now, just stick to your budget.

IMO, if you're really going to spend the $846 and go over-budget, drop the CPU down to a 3000+/3200+ and put that extra $75 into the 7900gt instead of the 7600gt. That way, the $75 investment will actually translate into fps increase while gaming.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

If going single core I would recommend the 3700+

It can be found for less than $100 and it has the larger cache which helps with many games and most of them will clock to 2.8ghz, which is higher than most all 3200's,3500's or x2 3800's can clock

 

[Bobthelost]

If you're overclocking then just get a 3200, it'll be enough CPU even without the cache of the 3700. If you're not then the more you spend on the CPU the better, but a 3200 is sufficent.

At the moment dual core is a waste of money for gaming, Oblivion is the only game i know of that benifits from it, (when you're not GPU limmited, which you will be) and even then it's only by around 5%. In the future this will no doubt change, but you can always upgrade later on when and if you need a dual core CPU.

 

[mshan]

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=45&threadid=1919129&enterthread=y