Dual Core Processors - why do so many people want them to game?

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: NokiaDude
It's the latest and greatest. If people were like you and upgraded when prices lowered, our whole economy would collapse.


I bet you'd buy a used car because you think "oh I'll wait for the prices to come down".

actually i only buy brand new cars...but there are serious reasons behind it

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: TerryMathews

Originally posted by: BOLt
What is the connection between a user with < 100 posts and wanting dual core?

It was just a very poorly veiled attempt to complain about n00bs. By someone who hasn't been here anywhere long enough to complain about that.

this does seem to be the trend....

i have been here for ~2yrs under this name, but many others under others

 

[Gamer X]

So when I reach 100 posts will that make me eligible for an X2?

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: Gamer X
So when I reach 100 posts will that make me eligible for an X2?

it just seems like a lot of noobs want to go x2 more so than other cpus that would be better suited for their individual needs, like i said in the title, to game.

 

[biostud]

because a d/c doesn't increase the future overall upgrade budget that much when you take future SMP software into account.
It's not best value for money ATM true, but if you have extra $$$ to use I don't think it will be a bad investment.

 

[SynthDude2001]

Originally posted by: biostud
because a d/c doesn't increase the future overall upgrade budget that much when you take future SMP software into account.
It's not best value for money ATM true, but if you have extra $$$ to use I don't think it will be a bad investment.

QFT.

I've had my Athlon XP for two years, and it's not too far-fetched to assume that I'd keep an X2 for at least that long (or longer). Given that I don't really want to feel pressured into upgrading again next year if I can avoid it (i.e. when multithreaded games and other software comes out and makes single cores look somewhat dated), I might as well spend the money - especially when there's supposed to be a cheaper $345 version out very soon. That's well worth it for me...hell, I paid that much for my 6800GT last year.

 

[Polish3d]

How about these numbers for gaming: My Athlon X2 @ 2.6 will beat an FX-55 and it costs 300 less, and will destroy the FX-55 in almost every other application.

Watch it beat the FX-55 @ 200mhz slower (stock) in 3 of the tests and virtually tie it with the rest:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410&p=7

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: Frackal
How about these numbers for gaming: My Athlon X2 @ 2.6 will beat an FX-55 and it costs 300 less, and will destroy the FX-55 in almost every other application.

Watch it beat the FX-55 @ 200mhz slower (stock) in 3 of the tests and virtually tie it with the rest:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410&p=7

that is not a good benchmark to make your point when a 3500 is within 15fp (and all the fps are easily playable) and costs much less than either the fx55 or your cpu...

 

[Polish3d]

True although I was thinking dual core vs. fastest single core

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

However, I point out I'm going 3800+ X2 and not something too expensive because it is the alternative to my 3700+ SD plan, and both are about the same price.

but then you're trading 3700+ speed for just 3200+ in games. The slower per-CPU speed hurts you right away and only _might_ help you someday (in games).

I'm trading sure, but is it that big of a difference? I'm confident I can OC to at least 2.4 GHz and 3700 SD ~ 3800+ Venice (although the 1MB still wins most of the time), meaning my X2 3800+ @ 2.4 should make up for the 3700+. I would sacrifice a few FPS for more futureproofing sure.