Dual core Vs. Single core for gaming

[newmenu]

why are there benches out there showing the dual cores underperforming when compared to single core cpus when tested on games. if a gamer wanted the best cpu out to play games and wasnt interested in burning dvd's and encoding data while gaming, which very very few will, how would these dual cores compete with the more inexpensive alternatives when most people who buy the top of the line parts are enthusiest gamers anyways?

 

[Mik3y]

i'm still going for dual-core. screw a few fps.

 

[Appledrop]

Well there is no reason why a dual core should be faster in current games, but once games start using multiple threads, the dual core will reign.

 

[imported_Kensai]

As everyone else said.
Dual-core will improve multi-tasking performance, and once multi-threaded games come out. PWNage.

 

[Duvie]

The title of the thread is retarded....misspelled dual and vague as hell....

IN the test they ran simulated 4400+ X2s from opteron 875's...that is only 2.2ghz core so what the fvck did you expect from a chip 200mhz slower...a 4000+ is 2.4ghz...Also you seem to not have either read or comprehended the reviews because they were done on server boards, using ECC ram, cas 3 settings, and possibly 2t timings...Again what would you have expected...


Look beyond the PR rating..It has been bogus for a long time and is conservative in apps the dual cores can add 80% and 0% in other apps....It is not meant to be a comparison in all apps..LOL!!! AMDs are not just gaming computers....The run a whole suite of test to come up with those ratings and in most times they dont get that right.....A3800+ in many games is no worse then 2% to the 4000+ so it doesn't quite deserve its rating then either.

To sum it up I would hope nobody would be stupid enough in this day in age to try tom compare PR ratings of chips in single apps....

Once they are on a desktop meant for the X2. A dual core of equal speed to a single core (current models) should perform identical to if not slightly better due to core revisions.....


My take on it is you need to reread the reviews....

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

Originally posted by: newmenu
anyone out there have a take on this. anyone saving up for a duel core now that thier testing out lower in gaming performance than a 4000?

Let me see if I can explain this

AMD 64 4000+ is 2.4ghtrtz with 1024L2 cache
AMD 64 x2 4400+ (mimiced by Opteron 875) is 2.2ghrtz with 1024L2 cache on each core

Games are single threaded so only one processor is used at a time so ...
AMD 64 4000+ at 2.4 with 1024L2chache versus one AMD64 2.2ghrtz with 1024L2 Cache

Obviously the 4000+ will win because in a singlethreaded application it has 200 more megahertz

Now did you see the multi-tasking performance of the Opteron 875 (nearly equivalent to the X2 4400+ [two 2.2ghrtz 1024L2 cache core] actually a little slower because of registered ram and timings etc.)?

The 875 mimicing the X2 4400+ was able to burn a DVD and play Doom 3 at 92% the level the 875 (mimicing the X2 4400+) was able to play Doom 3 exclusively.

In other words you could burn a DVD and play Doom3 at the same time at 92% of full speed. Try doing that on a AMD64 4000+

There you have the difference.

Additionally, the X2 4800+ will give you the same frame rates as the AMD64 4000+ because it will be a dualcore 2.4ghrtz part so each core is basically a 4000+ so single threaded applications should run identically

 

[newmenu]

lol, whos gonna play doom3 and burn a dvd??? lol

 

[newmenu]

rofl, whos gonna play a game and multitask anything else at the same time anyways. lol please

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

Originally posted by: newmenu
lol, whos gonna play doom3 and burn a dvd??? lol

Obviously I was using that as a benchmark example :roll:

Did you actually read my post, do you know what multitasking is? Do you think perhaps that people do things in the background while playing game like Folding@home, antivirus, scientific calculations, simulations, file server, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. Now you don't have to stop one to do the other.

That's right no one is going to take advantage of background processes while they play a game on their workstation. My bad, I forget computer games automatically take up all the cpu cycles ... wait ... that's right ... that is one primary reason to go to dualcore

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: newmenu
rofl, whos gonna play a game and multitask anything else at the same time anyways. lol please

You'd be surprised.

 

[newmenu]

 

[newmenu]

besides you didnt answer my Q, who is going to be playing high end games and run other apps that need your attention.

 

[Hyperlite]

screw gaming, try running any number of other apps. AMD dual cores will rape intels, i don't know where you're getting your info.
you have an awefully nice rig for not knowing anything about what your talking about.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: newmenu
besides you didnt answer my Q, who is going to be playing high end games and run other apps that need your attention. How many people have two monitors? If you use a high end pc for work related purposes and you have money to spend why would you use anything other than an intel system or apple system anyways? both would kick amd dual core anyday

Err, no they wouldn't.
Basically, when the AMD X2 comes out, NOTHING will beat it.
The X2 even beats the Pentium D at ENCODING. The ONE thing Intel had over AMD with single processors was it was better at encoding, now not even that is true.
Intel is now slower at pretty much every task you can throw at it than AMD, so tell me why you would go Intel over AMD? Because it's slower? Because it's hotter?
And bear in mind you said high end, so the fact that the X2 costs more than the Pentium D isn't an issue.
So you have hot and slow vs cool and fast, and you say people would go with hot and fast?

As for Apple...well, I'm not even going to comment.

And if you have a high end PC, why wouldn't you have dual monitors? That's really PART of a high end PC, large screen real estate.

Please go and read up on dual core processors before talking more bullsh!t.

 

[AnandThenMan]

I for one will use a dual core to its fullest extent. I do a hell of a lot of video encoding for one, being able to encode and play a nice game at the same time is fantastic. Hey if you are the kind of user that poo poo's dual core then buy a Celeron and shut the hell up.

 

[Hyperlite]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: newmenu
besides you didnt answer my Q, who is going to be playing high end games and run other apps that need your attention. How many people have two monitors? If you use a high end pc for work related purposes and you have money to spend why would you use anything other than an intel system or apple system anyways? both would kick amd dual core anyday

Err, no they wouldn't.
Basically, when the AMD X2 comes out, NOTHING will beat it.
The X2 even beats the Pentium D at ENCODING. The ONE thing Intel had over AMD with single processors was it was better at encoding, now not even that is true.
Intel is now slower at pretty much every task you can throw at it than AMD, so tell me why you would go Intel over AMD? Because it's slower? Because it's hotter?
And bear in mind you said high end, so the fact that the X2 costs more than the Pentium D isn't an issue.
So you have hot and slow vs cool and fast, and you say people would go with hot and fast?

As for Apple...well, I'm not even going to comment.

And if you have a high end PC, why wouldn't you have dual monitors? That's really PART of a high end PC, large screen real estate.

Please go and read up on dual core processors before talking more bullsh!t.

word

 

[Duvie]

"I didnt say it was a better cpu than a dual core."

NO you didn't but you made this moronic statement.....

"anyone saving up for a duel core now that thier testing out lower in gaming performance than a 4000? "

If you actually read them yourself you will understand why you cant possibly be comparing a 4000+ or any desktop gaming solution at this pont....



Then to top it offf!!!

"If you use a high end pc for work related purposes and you have money to spend why would you use anything other than an intel system or apple system anyways? both would kick amd dual core anyday"

Another Asshat statement...BUddy you have NO CLUE!!! AMD systems are leading the industry now in CAD rendering and many famous movie companies are using them now in the most popular movies of the year...yes beating beloved INtel and MAC....They are opterons (dual single cores) but again if you can read and you read those articles you will see a dual core opteron performs actually slightly better then 2 equal speed opteron single core chips....

 

[newmenu]

man get your arguments straight, maybe your misread the question

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: newmenu
besides you didnt answer my Q, who is going to be playing high end games and run other apps that need your attention.

its not just running apps that need your attention. i like to set things to download and then play games. of ir you have your virus scanner and spyware scanner turned on. neither of those things needs my attention, but they take up processor time. i keep my gmail, google news, and weather page open, and they refresh themselves, taking cpu time. dual processor will run that faster.

unless you're turning off every single application you have while playing games a dual core processor of the same MHz will be faster.

once games start taking advantage of dual core (and they probably will very soon, probably with the next quake and unreal releases) then a dual core processor of lower MHz will be faster.

 

[Duvie]

Formulate a question that isnt retarded.....You just re-edited it so most wont see how retarded it was....

Dont get mad at us for your question being stupid and incorrect. Your knowledge seems to be equal to it....What are your 16 or 18???

 

[newmenu]

 

[Capt Caveman]

Have you read anyone's comment to your thread? And lots of folks use multiple monitors. I was AMD and now Intel for multi-tasking but will probably go back to AMD when their dualcores come out. Who multi-tasks while gaming? How about being able to play FarCry on one monitor while being able to email, surf, burn a DVD, play itunes, run a database thru the other monitor without skipping a beat. You know you can pause while playing a game right?

Originally posted by: newmenu
besides you didnt answer my Q, who is going to be playing high end games and run other apps that need your attention.

 

[newmenu]

 

[Capt Caveman]

LOL. Look at the edit date of the meathead's original post.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: newmenu

Originally posted by: Duvie
Formulate a question that isnt retarded.....You just re-edited it so most wont see how retarded it was....

Dont get mad at us for your question being stupid and incorrect. Your knowledge seems to be equal to it....What are your 16 or 18???

liar

HUh?? That is OK...most ppl qouted your original statements...

I at least read the reviews before coming up with lame-ass conclusions.....You must be young cause you are too lazy to do the research when it is available and most every hardware site has been talking about it for a week and a half now...