Dual core or not?

[sammyunltd]

Hi!

I'm going to buy a new computer soon and I wanted to know if Dual Core was the way to go?

I just wanna play games and extract some stuff with WinRAR... nothing very demanding. Is it better to have a let's say X2 3800+ or a Venice 3500/San Diego 3700+?

 

[PKing1977]

The X2, with new games like F.E.A.R being optimized for dual cores it is hands down the best way to go. The only way i would recommend a single core anymore is if the person has a tight budget.

PKing

 

[Bona Fide]

No reason not to get dual-core if you can afford it.

 

[exar333]

LOL, go dual-core but not for F.E.A.R's sake...

damn bloatware...

 

[BonzaiDuck]

There are a range of options. If you're building it yourself, you could get a dual-core AMD-type motherboard, buy an inexpensive single-core processor, wait for dual-core prices to drop before they're no longer in production, then swap out the (e.g., Venice) for an X2.

Or, you could spring for a dual-core right away. You WILL notice a difference when running multiple applications simultaneously.

A point I made elsewhere and earlier was that 64-bit processing is still waiting for software to catch up with it, although I should probably check again to see what latest developments in that market have occurred. Otherwise, 64-bit only assists the OS in currency right now -- the 64-bit version of Win XP. And 64-bit processor technology is now well established, with Intel coming in as an afterthought with EM64T.

From what people say here, dual-core processors provide a real noticeable improvement for multi-tasking. It certainly beats Intel's HyperThreading technology, which has upsides and downsides with an improvement in speed of 10% and not much more. Dual-core processors provide you with 100% gains in a multi-tasked environment.

You're advised at this point to stick with the AMD dual-cores. Tom's Hardware Guide proved that this spring.

 

[sammyunltd]

Yeah. I acknowledged.

Are Dual-Core-Ready mobos more expansive than single-core mobos?
Does the ASUS A8N-E has a Dual-Core version?

 

[dclapps]

No one knows yet how well future games will take advantage of dual core technology. I think it's safe to assume they will [or do] take some advantage, but if your sole reason for buying the X2 is because of that gaming advantage, the price doesn't seem [to me] to justify it's cost. You could take bonzai's advice by grabbing a 939 board and throwing a 3000 in it, whilst waiting for the performance figures on the dual core games to come out, but your going to have to accept the fact that you will NOT make back exactly what you payed for the venice, and therefore are paying money to wait.

Then again, computer hardware and time never seem to get along, not for the consumer at least.


Edit: Both dual core chips and single core chips are based on the socket 939 platform, so as long as your motherboard supports socket 939, then any 939 chip will work. Some motherboards might need a bios update to recognize the dual core, however.

 

[sammyunltd]

Okay.

That's nice. I think I will start out with a 3500+ Venice or a 3700+ San Diego and then see next year.

Anyway, there's the new Athlon CPU coming out next year I think.

 

[Hacp]

3000+ oced is the way to go.

 

[RichUK]

Originally posted by: sammyunltd
Okay.

That's nice. I think I will start out with a 3500+ Venice or a 3700+ San Diego and then see next year.

Anyway, there's the new Athlon CPU coming out next year I think.

if you are going to go this route the 3500+ will be a waste .. get the 3700+ if anything

 

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: RichUK

Originally posted by: sammyunltd
Okay.

That's nice. I think I will start out with a 3500+ Venice or a 3700+ San Diego and then see next year.

Anyway, there's the new Athlon CPU coming out next year I think.

if you are going to go this route the 3500+ will be a waste .. get the 3700+ if anything

Personally if you are dropping $275 on a San Diego, you might as well drop another $75 and get the X2 3800+..

3000+ or 3800+ X2 is the only way I would go!

 

[RichUK]

Originally posted by: bjc112

Originally posted by: RichUK

Originally posted by: sammyunltd
Okay.

That's nice. I think I will start out with a 3500+ Venice or a 3700+ San Diego and then see next year.

Anyway, there's the new Athlon CPU coming out next year I think.

if you are going to go this route the 3500+ will be a waste .. get the 3700+ if anything

Personally if you are dropping $275 on a San Diego, you might as well drop another $75 and get the X2 3800+..

3000+ or 3800+ X2 is the only way I would go!

Definitely agree :thumbsup:

 

[AznAnarchy99]

yea, dual core is the way to go. i really dont like waiting 2 hours for a dvd to encode, 1 hour with HT, 15-20 minutes with dual core

 

[CraKaJaX]

get the 4400+ if you can afford it and OC it past 4800+ speeds, you won't regret it.

 

[fstime]

If you don't need the advantages of dual core, don't get it, bottom line.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: CraKaJaX
get the 4400+ if you can afford it and OC it past 4800+ speeds, you won't regret it.

:thumbsup:

If on a tight(er) budget, go for the 3800+ and clock the snot out of it. With some tweaking you should be able to hit 4800+ speeds, and, perhaps, beyond.

 

[evilharp]

Originally posted by: sammyunltd
Yeah. I acknowledged.

Are Dual-Core-Ready mobos more expansive than single-core mobos?
Does the ASUS A8N-E has a Dual-Core version?

All 939 boards are "supposed" to be dual-core ready. Before you buy, check the manufacturers website to see if the current bios supports the X2 processor.

Right now, the Nforce4 is recognized as the safe bet for X2.

I have a Gigabyte nForce3 board (GA-K8NS Ultra-939) and I was able to use my X2 with a simple bios upgrade. Interestingly, while Gigabyte has released four revisions of the bios that support the X2, most other nForce3 bios' (DFI, Epox) are still in "beta" stage.

As for the the A8N-E, it will support all 939 cpus (FX,X2,A64) after bios 1006 (see: http://support.asus.com/cpusupport/cpusupport.aspx?SLanguage=en-us )

As for dual-core versus single core, it's totally up to you.

Single core offers good desktop performance (office apps/video editing/compression utilities) and solid gaming performance.
Dual core offers excellent desktop performance (office apps/video editing/compression utilities) and solid gaming performance.

With A64 you can't lose

 

[entropy1982]

Originally posted by: CraKaJaX
get the 4400+ if you can afford it and OC it past 4800+ speeds, you won't regret it.

Would you really see much of a diff between an OCed 4400+ and an OCed 3800+?

I've heard of the 3800+ hitting 2.7 with good air cooling and the 4480+ doesn't more than that. The extra cache gives like 1-5% depending on APP. Doesn't seem worthit to me

 

[piddlefoot]

no one knows whaty games a dual core will use ? l say bs , bf2 uses dual ! wasnt programmed by dice too but it does try it yourself, and if you add a bot program then dual pwns fx55 , at 100 bots , maybe you use FRAPS , in that case DUAL ALL THE WAY, editing / dual , online ANYTHING is faster smoother, even if the specific game does only use 1 core the second core can run all backround tasks and works out faster than an fx55, i use a 4400+dual...

DUAL ALL THE WAY , and how long until AMD release an fx dual chip?

 

[ncage]

Originally posted by: sammyunltd
Hi!

I'm going to buy a new computer soon and I wanted to know if Dual Core was the way to go?

I just wanna play games and extract some stuff with WinRAR... nothing very demanding. Is it better to have a let's say X2 3800+ or a Venice 3500/San Diego 3700+?

Id say for games stick with a 3000+ venice core overclocked and a 939 board. Games currently don't take that much use of dual core and if they do in the future dual core will probably drop to the point where they are much more affordable. I went with a dual core but my usage is different than yours. I only play games once in awhile. I do more heavy multitasking stuff like running two virtual machine os and also do multi-threaded programming so i really wanted dual core. A lot of people buy dual core for the cool factor but they don't really need them. Ive wanted dual cpu processor for a long time. This allows me to do it and save money since you don't have to buy a high end mb & your saving more money since they are on the same die.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: evilharp
As for the the A8N-E, it will support all 939 cpus (FX,X2,A64) after bios 1006 (see: http://support.asus.com/cpusupport/cpusupport.aspx?SLanguage=en-us )

Just FYI, 1005 supports the X2 fully as well. I know

 

[chinkgai]

if you use the search function, you'll find eleventy billion and eight threads with the exact same question

 

[Maetryx]

Originally posted by: chinkgai
if you use the search function, you'll find eleventy billion and eight threads with the exact same question

Do your own search on the phrase "eleventy billion" :roll:
-----
I thought I read that specifically for gaming, a fast single core was better. No?

 

[chinkgai]

Originally posted by: Maetryx

Do your own search on the phrase "eleventy billion" :roll:

sure, as you wish.

here are the results if you cant do it urself

also, have you had your sarcasm meter checked recently? :roll: