Dual core Vs. Single core for gaming

[newmenu]

 

[Capt Caveman]

The sad thing is Duvie answered this kid's question in his very first post. If all you do is game, you have no reason to get a dual-core unless you wanted to play a game that was multi-threaded. A dual core of the same speed will be equal to a A64 of the same speed. There's your answer. AGAIN

 

[newmenu]

so much hatred out there today

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: newmenu

Originally posted by: 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.

you'd have to pause your game out of shame if you played me capt. caveman

Wow. You put me in my place. Is this Fata1ity? I didn't know I was talking to Mr. Gamer. Duvie was right. You are an ASSHAT.

 

[sandorski]

Trolling trolling trolling
Keep the postcount growing
Yousuck!

Really dude, get a life.

 

[newmenu]

 

[newmenu]

I make too much money as a recruiter to worry about going "pro" as a gamer to make money.

 

[newmenu]

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.

anyone can quote and replace what was written with new garbage fvkin liar

 

[newmenu]

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: newmenu
anyone can quote and replace what was written with new garbage fvkin liar

Go troll someplace else. The only person lying is yourself. It's sad that you're even going back to your posts and editing them. All anybody needs to do is look at the dates of your edits.

 

[EightySix Four]

I'm 15 and apparently much more intelligent than this moron...

Dude, dual core won't give you performance benefits in something set-up for single core, but it can help due to the stuff going on in the background... Hell with the amount of spyware out there these days, you'll eventually need two cores to get any work done due to them eating up CPU time. And btw, there are lots of people who like to be encoding a dvd, listening to music, browsing the web, and running SpyBot or Norton AV or something, and without dual core that would be impossible to do efficiently, but with it, it's not that hard a task anymore (well, if your hard drives can keep up).

Also, like everyone else says that was a server platform and was actually slower than a production X2 will be.

 

[Munky]

I can't believe all of you are missing the point of multi threaded games! You don't need to have dual cores to play a game and have spyware running on the other core, but that's not why I'd get a dual core cpu. If a game/app is multi-threaded, it means it can be run something like 2 separate programs at the same time, like one thread doing the AI, and the other doing physics modeling. In that situation, dual cores wil be VERY beneficial.

 

[newmenu]

When I was told about these forums, I was warned that there are alot of really good people that can help alot, BUT, that there were alot of fvkers too and to watchout for alot of immature priks and misinformation. It saddens me to see more people seem to be priks than productive and informative members of this community. Please dont take what I write and write something else to further your BS Duvie.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: newmenu

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.

anyone can quote and replace what was written with new garbage fvkin liar

Anyone can edit their post.
It's just as easy to see "edited by at the bottom as it would be for me to change what you posted when I quote you.

Safe to say you are a douche and should be banned.

 

[newmenu]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: newmenu

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.

anyone can quote and replace what was written with new garbage fvkin liar

Anyone can edit their post.
It's just as easy to see "edited by at the bottom as it would be for me to change what you posted when I quote you.

Safe to say you are a douche and should be banned.

Ban yourself

 

[Duvie]

"Please dont take what I write and write something else to further your BS Duvie."

I qouted straight from the horses-ass...err I mean mouth (YOU!!!)

It is spelled prick.....

 

[Capt Caveman]

Too funny. This kid has changed the topic and his original post AGAIN.

 

[hippotautamus]

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???

While I agree that newmenu is indeed retarded and knows nothing of computers, I resent the age comment. I'm only 16, and while I would not claim to be an expert, I know computers.

Just saying, age is not necessarily an indication of maturity or knowledge.

 

[Duvie]

He actuially has refinined it into a more specific question versus the crap he typed first.....This would have provoked a much different response.

I like how he bashed AMDs an now has removed that statement as well....He threw his own thread sideways on that one. I just said his title and question were retarded and vague an di must have been right cause he has change it.....The other thing sI said it was clear he hadn't read the reviews and that is abundantly clear!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHHAHAHHAAHHAHHHA!!!! ROFL!!! What a @%$^#&%$^*%$

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: hippotautamus

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???

While I agree that newmenu is indeed retarded and knows nothing of computers, I resent the age comment. I'm only 16, and while I would not claim to be an expert, I know computers.

Just saying, age is not necessarily an indication of maturity or knowledge.

True....very true...But when it goes this way ( athread like this) you can pretty much count on it being someone younger...

I was trying to yank his chain anyways!!! I know a couple guys in here that are in HIgh School and I take advice from them. Video cards, etc.....The yound gamers know a helluva lot more then me with regards to that...

 

[hippotautamus]

We have more time to waste on it

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: 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?

In answer to THIS post:

AMD have stated they will continue their FX line (the enthusiast chip they produce) pretty much FOR gamers.
They say (correctly at the moment) that gamers don't need dual cores, because games rely on single threaded power.
So they've kept the FX line at higher clock speed and single cores for the enthusiast game, and dual cores are for the high end "other" user, with single cores for the more basic user.

Hardcore enthusiast gamers (in AMD's eyes) are supposed to go with the FX chips.
Power users with dual core
Average Joe with regular AMD64's.

 

[Cheesetogo]

Why will games suddenly start being multi-threaded? Dual proccesors have been around forever, and nobody ever made a multi-threaded game for those, did they? The whole point of dual cores or dual proccesors is so that you can have many applications going at once, or for advanced programs for servers and workstations. It seems to me that dual cores are not being made for gaming, but for the greater amount of multi-tasking with more demanding programs. I really don't see dual core as a gaming thing, and AMD obviously does not either, as acccording to some article on this site, AMD is going to keep the single core fx line on top as the gaming proccesors.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: Cheesetogo
Why will games suddenly start being multi-threaded? Dual proccesors have been around forever, and nobody ever made a multi-threaded game for those, did they? The whole point of dual cores or dual proccesors is so that you can have many applications going at once, or for advanced programs for servers and workstations. It seems to me that dual cores are not being made for gaming, but for the greater amount of multi-tasking with more demanding programs. I really don't see dual core as a gaming thing, and AMD obviously does not either, as acccording to some article on this site, AMD is going to keep the single core fx line on top as the gaming proccesors.

Why? Because it's better.
Yes, dual processors have been around for ages. They have also been expensive (2xCPU cost + extra mobo cost) so out of reach for the mainstream.There have also been upgrades in terms of CPU speed, so there were no CPU bottlenecks to worry about.

CPU manufacturers have said that in terms of raw clock speed, it's getting harded to increase, and multiple cores is the way to go to increase power. THIS is why we are going to see a shift to multi-threaded apps, because we need to if we want to harness more power.
Also, the reason the shift is occuring now is because Intel and AMD are introducing affordable dual core CPU's, no longer will you need a more expensive motherboard and " CPU's, you can pay less than twice as much for an extra core, and use a cheaper motherboard than you used to be able to.
Hell, Intel's prices are very cheap ($280 or so for entry level dual core), so it's not affordable, and that means it can become mainstream.

There's no point in making games multi-threaded unless people have computers which can use more than one processor. Now CPU makers have started along the dual core path, games manufacturers will head there as well, because it will be beneficial in terms of speed.
The reason AMD are keeping FX around is because there won't be multi-threaded games for a while (2006 probably), so gamers will still have more use for single thread power (ie: faster FX cores) than a dual core processor.
Eventually things will migrate, but with most things in computers, it takes time (think operating systems, graphics cards etc).

 

[Duvie]

They have been but due to the prohibitively expensive price tag of dual cpu boards, dual certified cpus (opterons and xeons), as well as less tweaked systems of dual cpus it makes not much sense to target that market for game play....They tend to run slower ECC ram, chipsets are not tweaked for performance, and the boards are usually quite deluxe with scsi controllers and tons of other components that gamers are not interested in....

IMO the gaming systems need to stay relatively affordable or ppl will migrate to gaming consoles solely and the pC games market will end....NOw that being said the fX line and P4 EE line is outrageous an vid cards are ridiculous, but in the end the other components can be had relatively cheaply and thus overall cost stays low....In the end the dual cpu market mainly for high end workstations and servers 100 mobos are non existent, cpus have huge premiums over near identical same speed desktop cores, and ECC ram has a premium for mostly lesser performance...gamers are not going to be using that platform so gaming developers program for the platform that is being used....

The only reason we are even looking at multithreading games is the fact we have hit the wall in cpu speeds and thus added performance in the coming years will have to come from multiplicity and not single core race engines.....Until we can cool them, power them, and basically find the materials to do it we are better off using dual, quads, and ultimately octo cores of speeds that current tech can sustain....