dual-core or single-core?

[tjpark1111]

I've often heard that dual-core is the way to go from now on, to be future-proof, and safe. However, I'm still debating on whether to get single or dual-core. I won't be doing any demanding tasks, nor will I be doing extreme multitasking(not like I can talk to people on aim, burn a dvd, start a virus scan all at the same time while playing HL2)Although it may be true that dual-core may help in the future, that doesn't mean single cores will become obsolete and useless(does it?) I do want to keep the system as long as possible(3 to 4 years although tech. these days are moving so fast....)So, can anyone answer my question as to get dual-core or single-core, and how long the rig should last?

 

[btabios]

If your going to be overclocking I suggest getting an amd64 3700+ or 4000+ sd, or and opty 170. Those chips will give you the best bang for your buck overclocked. Personally, I think that unless you do heavy multitasking and have alot of money to spend on a cpu then its right to go for a dual. Otherwise and oc'ed singlecore will give you great performance for 70% of the enthusiasts out there.

I'm pretty happy with my rig, and I'm getting better performance then a friend of mine who can't even oc his dual 4200+ past 2.6Ghz (for 1/2 of the price).

 

[deadseasquirrel]

The beautiful thing about socket chipsets is that you can change the CPU out. And, while yes, you do run a risk that in a year or two, with new sockets coming out all the time, it might be hard to find a new chip that will fit your socket. Luckily, there will still be Ebay, FS/FT, and other vendors selling them.

Basically, you need to ask yourself, what is your budget? What do you do on your computer the most (gaming, general email/surf, multimedia encoding)? What does the rest of your machine look like (i.e. could that money be better used on another component)?

There is no doubt that multi-core CPUs are the future. But keep in mind that there is no such thing as future-proofing in the computer world. It appears you're either on socket 939 right now, or about to build a 939 system. IMO, you should stick with a 3000+ Venice single-core for $125, and, if you feel comfortable, overclock it to 2.6ghz+. Then, later, when dual-cores (or quad even) have more use for you, you can sell that chip and buy a new (or used) socket 939 dual-core chip for a lot less than what they cost right now ($300+). But, again, it depends greatly on those questions I asked above.

 

[ronnystrauss]

people who dont have dual core will tell you not to get it. i went from single to dual and im telling you its MUCH BETTER games are coming out in dual core and even games that arent in dual core all your back ground programs will switch over to the second core so it will be faster. get like an opteron 165 or 170 and overclock the hell out of it, or if your not overclocking get the x2 3800

 

[F1shF4t]

Originally posted by: ronnystrauss
people who dont have dual core will tell you not to get it. i went from single to dual and im telling you its MUCH BETTER games are coming out in dual core and even games that arent in dual core all your back ground programs will switch over to the second core so it will be faster. get like an opteron 165 or 170 and overclock the hell out of it, or if your not overclocking get the x2 3800

Yea exactly, untill u use dual core u wont know how good it is, sure it is possible to encode video and play games at the same time, but its also so much smoother when u do everything else, no lag no stalls everything is always responsive.
And i found a lot og games to be much more responsive and smoother as the windows and progs like virus scan etc dont use cpu resources. Games like san andreas, neverwinter nights and halo, which i play quite a bit run much smoother and better on dual core for me.

 

[robertk2012]

my vote is for dual core.