is the dual core worth it?

[Koudelka]

Hello.

I asked a question earlier if i should go with an FX-57 or 4800+ X2 for gaming. And the bottom line is that that FX line is better for gaming.

All i do is STRICTLY gaming. Is it really worth it to go for the extra core for me? or go the FX route?

Thanks in advance!!

 

[EagleEye]

I would say go fx-57. It will give you better gaming results.

 

[foodfightr]

Strictly game? Then don't get the FX. The FX is for overclocking hence the multiplier is unlocked!

Games these days are multiple threaded... also a number of other threads will also runing (anti virus, firewall, etc)..... Advantage? Dual Core.

Also, consider the new line of opteron dual cores too!

 

[Koudelka]

That does shed some new light. Thanks

Edit: I had heard though that games werent multi-threaded yet or werent taking advantage of it yet?

 

[Phluxed]

Everyone around here seems to be loving the opteron process for its overclockability vs cost. I understand that, but I can't seem to find evidence that it performs better than an x2 whilst gaming.

 

[foodfightr]

Originally posted by: Koudelka
That does shed some new light. Thanks

Edit: I had heard though that games werent multi-threaded yet or werent taking advantage fo it yet?

Games haven't really been written to take full advantage of dual core, but most run many threads, so technically dual core will have a benefit anyways. Also, consider the FX... it will do something like GAME->Norton->Game->ZoneAlarm->Game->Winamp.... On dual core?

Core1: Game, Game, Game, Game, Game
Core2: Game, Norton, Game, Zone Alarm, Game, Winamp

 

[foodfightr]

Originally posted by: Phluxed
Everyone around here seems to be loving the opteron process for its overclockability vs cost. I understand that, but I can't seem to find evidence that it performs better than an x2 whilst gaming.

Dual core opterons are coming out about the same as X2s as far as overclocking, but thier advantage is a lower cost and 2x1MB cache on even the lower end chips.

As for single core? The opteron 146 CABNE can hit 3.0Ghz on air cooling, easily.

 

[imported_drx]

Originally posted by: foodfightr
Strictly game? Then don't get the FX. The FX is for overclocking hence the multiplier is unlocked!

Games these days are multiple threaded... also a number of other threads will also runing (anti virus, firewall, etc)..... Advantage? Dual Core.

Also, consider the new line of opteron dual cores too!

Completely wrong. Games are not multithreaded these days. They're getting there, but not currently. This is why you see higher performance on faster single core processors, and also why pretty much every review system testing highend video cards is using an FX. FXs aren't just for overclocking. Yes, you pay a premium for the unlocked multiplier, but if you want the best game performancet today, an FX is the way to go, not a dual core.

 

[foodfightr]

Clean install... Winamp, IE, ZoneAlarm, Gmail Notifier, BoClean, Orb, Aim and Warcraft Three open. NO malware.

Warcraft III (17 Threads)
673 Total Threads

Sure if you can get an FX going fast enough it may be able to make one application run very fast and handle minor background programs, but computing is very thread intensive. Most of the new games will have dual core support, even the new FX models (62 I believe) will be switching to dual core.

I'll go with dual core any day.

 

[imported_drx]

Originally posted by: foodfightr
Clean install... Winamp, IE, ZoneAlarm, Gmail Notifier, BoClean, Aim and Warcraft Three open. NO malware.

Warcraft III (17 Threads)
673 Total Threads

Sure if you can get an FX going fast enough it may be able to make one application run very fast and handle minor background programs, but computing is very thread intensive. Most of the new games will have dual core support, even the new FX models (62 I believe) will be switching to dual core.

I'll go with dual core any day.

I don't really care if you can encode video and do your taxes in the background while playing a game. I'll say it again. Games are not currently multithreaded. If you want the fastest gaming performance, get an FX.

 

[bfonnes]

Originally posted by: drx

Originally posted by: foodfightr
Clean install... Winamp, IE, ZoneAlarm, Gmail Notifier, BoClean, Aim and Warcraft Three open. NO malware.

Warcraft III (17 Threads)
673 Total Threads

Sure if you can get an FX going fast enough it may be able to make one application run very fast and handle minor background programs, but computing is very thread intensive. Most of the new games will have dual core support, even the new FX models (62 I believe) will be switching to dual core.

I'll go with dual core any day.

I don't really care if you can encode video and do your taxes in the background while playing a game. I'll say it again. Games are not currently multithreaded. If you want the fastest gaming performance, get an FX.

exactly... your computer will always be running 'multiple threads,' but this does not necessarily mean those applications are "multi-threaded." Do some research before you post. Windows should be multithreading, but most games are not. So, it may help in some ways if windows is multithreaded, maybe someone else can confirm.

BFonnes

 

[Skyhanger]

Originally posted by: bfonnes

Originally posted by: drx

Originally posted by: foodfightr
Clean install... Winamp, IE, ZoneAlarm, Gmail Notifier, BoClean, Aim and Warcraft Three open. NO malware.

Warcraft III (17 Threads)
673 Total Threads

Sure if you can get an FX going fast enough it may be able to make one application run very fast and handle minor background programs, but computing is very thread intensive. Most of the new games will have dual core support, even the new FX models (62 I believe) will be switching to dual core.

I'll go with dual core any day.

I don't really care if you can encode video and do your taxes in the background while playing a game. I'll say it again. Games are not currently multithreaded. If you want the fastest gaming performance, get an FX.

exactly... your computer will always be running 'multiple threads,' but this does not necessarily mean those applications are "multi-threaded." Do some research before you post. Windows should be multithreading, but most games are not. So, it may help in some ways if windows is multithreaded, maybe someone else can confirm.

BFonnes

Yes, most games are not used to take advantage of multiple threads, but the dual core can help by scheduling programs to run on different cores. Thus if you run a game, you'll have your game running one one core while the remaining programs will be moved to the other core.

 

[gozulin]

BFonnes[/quote]

Yes, most games are not used to take advantage of multiple threads, but the dual core can help by scheduling programs to run on different cores. Thus if you run a game, you'll have your game running one one core while the remaining programs will be moved to the other core.[/quote]

Exactly. More and more upcoming games will take advantage of dual cores though so if you're not planning on upgrading for at least 2-3 years, go dual core. If you've got money to burn, go FX now and switch to dual core when enough games are using it. Clear?

I'd go dual core but then, I do other stuff besides gaming and I always have a zillion programs open at once...

 

[Lyfer]

Opteron 165 FTW.

 

[SynthDude2001]

Originally posted by: Lyfer
Opteron 165 FTW.

:thumbsup:

 

[Phluxed]

Looks like the route I'll be taking. The 165 that is.

 

[imported_drx]

I think you guys are forgetting the key point of the OPs question:

"All i do is STRICTLY gaming. Is it really worth it to go for the extra core for me? or go the FX route?"

We're not talking about being able to run programs in the background while playing a game. We're talking about gaming, plain and simple.

 

[Skyhanger]

Originally posted by: drx
I think you guys are forgetting the key point of the OPs question:

"All i do is STRICTLY gaming. Is it really worth it to go for the extra core for me? or go the FX route?"

We're not talking about being able to run programs in the background while playing a game. We're talking about gaming, plain and simple.

Well, that's a perfect world isn't it? Even the OS itself will take up a nice little chunk of the process. And I don't think anyone will go gaming w/out something as simple as virus protection and a firewall.

If the OP lived in a ivory tower, then yes, the FX-57 is better.

 

[ribbon13]

Originally posted by: SynthDude2001

Originally posted by: Lyfer
Opteron 165 FTW.

:thumbsup:

I'm getting a Opteron 170 (want that extra lil bit of multiplier for OCing on vapor phase) , but I agree

Dual Core Socket 939 Opterons for ALL!

 

[Koudelka]

Are the Opteron's just cheaper? Or do they perform better, too?

I have never delved into anything Opteron, or read up on them.

 

[RussianSensation]

Just get a plain A64 3800 or 4000+. Spend the rest on dual 7800GTX 512mb. If you got so much money to blow on a processor, redirect those funds to get 2 of the fastest videocards. Not even 10 x2 processors will keep up with 48 pipelines and 1 gig of 1800mhz ram

 

[Agnostos Insania]

Originally posted by: Skyhanger

Originally posted by: drx
I think you guys are forgetting the key point of the OPs question:

"All i do is STRICTLY gaming. Is it really worth it to go for the extra core for me? or go the FX route?"

We're not talking about being able to run programs in the background while playing a game. We're talking about gaming, plain and simple.

Well, that's a perfect world isn't it? Even the OS itself will take up a nice little chunk of the process. And I don't think anyone will go gaming w/out something as simple as virus protection and a firewall.

I think it's also fair to say that many people like to listen to mp3's while gaming (offline).
If you play games online then there's chat programs, voice programs (like Ventrillo), 3rd party programs for games like WoW, etc...

Not sure if that's worth it, I'm just throwing out the fact that many gamers use multiple programs at the same time.

 

[imported_drx]

Originally posted by: Skyhanger

Originally posted by: drx
I think you guys are forgetting the key point of the OPs question:

"All i do is STRICTLY gaming. Is it really worth it to go for the extra core for me? or go the FX route?"

We're not talking about being able to run programs in the background while playing a game. We're talking about gaming, plain and simple.

Well, that's a perfect world isn't it? Even the OS itself will take up a nice little chunk of the process. And I don't think anyone will go gaming w/out something as simple as virus protection and a firewall.

If the OP lived in a ivory tower, then yes, the FX-57 is better.

You can go ahead and think whatever you want about processes in the background making the x2 a better choice, but the higher clocked single core processor offers better gaming performance. This is a fact. Take a look at any benchmarks, I'm not just making assumptions like you guys.

 

[BFG10K]

Games these days are multiple threaded...

No, in general they aren't and SMP is next to useless in games.

Definitely go with single core for gaming, especially since X2 platforms can have random glitches which are only curable by disabling the second CPU core.

 

[Markbnj]

[Completely wrong. Games are not multithreaded these days. They're getting there, but not currently]

I don't know why people keep repeating this, but I'll say the same thing I always do. Start any modern DirectX game, go to Task Manager, click Process tab, click View, click select columns and then check Thread Count.

Now tell me how many of your games are "not multithreaded these days." BF2, for example, runs 11 threads.

[Do some research before you post. Windows should be multithreading, but most games are not. So, it may help in some ways if windows is multithreaded, maybe someone else can confirm. ]

I have an idea, why don't _you_ do some research before you post? If you have to be asking for someone to confirm whether Windows is multithreaded, then you don't have a clue. Under those circumstances I wouldn't go off telling people who do that they're wrong. Every modern game is multi-threaded.