Hello all. Just looking to upgrade my cpu and would like something new. My main activity is gaming. I was looking at the x2 processors but not sure if this would fit my needs. Would a single core be better. Thanks guys!
Processor for Gaming
- Thread starter chelch
- Start date
for gaming, a fast single core (like the A64 4000+ which is now a bit over $100) will be the best for recent and current games. (assuming you have a socket 939 mobo).
for next gen games, dual-core will be an advantage, and the lowest X2 dual-cores are pretty attractive given that almost all of them can be overclocked to 2.6 ghz giving them competitve single threaded performance AND dual-core multi-tasking...
last i looked the 4200+ was only a few dollars more expensive than the 3800+, so that is where i would start looking
for next gen games, dual-core will be an advantage, and the lowest X2 dual-cores are pretty attractive given that almost all of them can be overclocked to 2.6 ghz giving them competitve single threaded performance AND dual-core multi-tasking...
last i looked the 4200+ was only a few dollars more expensive than the 3800+, so that is where i would start looking
What does the rest of your system look like-- CPU, video card, power supply, monitor? At what resolution do you play when gaming? What games do you like to play (or plan to play)?
In general, depending on your playing resolution, your video card should be your focus when making sure you system is ready for gaming.
Since you're considering an upgrade to an X2, I'm assuming you have a socket939 AMD system currently. If that's the case, your current processor is likely good enough... again, depending on your playing resolution and what video card you have currently.
In general, depending on your playing resolution, your video card should be your focus when making sure you system is ready for gaming.
Since you're considering an upgrade to an X2, I'm assuming you have a socket939 AMD system currently. If that's the case, your current processor is likely good enough... again, depending on your playing resolution and what video card you have currently.
Thanks for the replies. I havent upgraded in a while. I have an xp3200 as my current cpu. I am purchasing an nvidia 7950 GT in a few days. I play my games mainly at 1280x1024. My main concern was bad performance in games using a dual core as opposed to a single core. If performance is just about the same I will probably go with an 3800 x2 or soemthing like that.
That's true. For me, it's a bad upgrade. I play games at 1600x1200 and I have yet to see any difference a faster processor (or dual-core processor) would make at those settings, vs my 3000+ @ 2.5ghz and x1900xtx. As soon as I come across a game (or another app I care about) that will make a significant difference at that setting, I'll grab me an x2 s939 (likely the cheapest one I can find and oc it). But for my situation right now, it would be a wasted $100 upgrade (after selling my chip).
Well I notice that with my E6400, when playing games, AVAST! doesn't bog or cause me to lose FPS like before.
A 4000+ would give you quite a boost ofer than 3200+ XP. More cache and faster clocks would certainly help at 1280*1024, and if you don't multitask often there isn't much point to get a dual-core CPU.
Since you are still running a 3 year old Athlon XP chip, I take it you're not the kind that upgrades every 12 months?
If that is the case, then I strongly recommend dual core. More and more games will be multithreaded in the future, it's the only way the PC industry is going to gain performance because clockspeed improvements have stalled in the past couple of years.
An X2 chip is a good choice for budget dual core, but if you can afford it, the C2D line provides better gaming performance.
If that is the case, then I strongly recommend dual core. More and more games will be multithreaded in the future, it's the only way the PC industry is going to gain performance because clockspeed improvements have stalled in the past couple of years.
An X2 chip is a good choice for budget dual core, but if you can afford it, the C2D line provides better gaming performance.
Greetings mate, i'm guessing this is still on topic but i was wondering is difference in performance between the E6400 and E6600 very significant? i'm looking to purchase a new pc during november and was wondering if i should cut cost ?
Hyperlite
Diamond Member
- May 25, 2004
- 5,664
- 2
- 76
i still can't figure out why people insist on suggesting single core chips for gaming processors. you will be extremely hard pressed to find a game coming out after 2005 that will not be multithreaded. Developers have embraced dual core! people need to realize this!
Hyperlite: Yeah? Which games released in 2006 and those planned for release in half a year support dual cores?
myocardia
Diamond Member
- Jun 21, 2003
- 9,291
- 30
- 91
There are 5 games availabe today, IIRC, that support dual-core with a patch. There has yet to be one that was actually written with SMP in mind. Now, some of the future games will definitely be SMP-enabled. I know that Crysis will be, and Alan Wake will be. Know some secrets that we don't?:roll:
Ok. I found an athalon 64 4000 for 200 bucks. The description says ''san diego core'' . Can someone explain what the difference is between cores and why this one seems lower priced.
myocardia
Diamond Member
- Jun 21, 2003
- 9,291
- 30
- 91
Chelch, if you live in America, that's an absolutely horrible price. Newegg has them for... Well, newegg doesn't have them right now. I paid $139 for the one I bought, about 2 or 2.5 months ago. Where do you live?
Anyway, a San Diego is the newest of the single cores, along with the Venice. It's a Venice, only all Venices have 512KB of L2 cache, and all San Diego's have 1MB of L2 cache. It's a good chip, and they usually overclock nicely, if that interests you.
Anyway, a San Diego is the newest of the single cores, along with the Venice. It's a Venice, only all Venices have 512KB of L2 cache, and all San Diego's have 1MB of L2 cache. It's a good chip, and they usually overclock nicely, if that interests you.
Hyperlite
Diamond Member
- May 25, 2004
- 5,664
- 2
- 76
FEAR, HL2, Prey IIRC, Oblivion, Company of Heros, pretty sure EQ2 was/is, though i may be wrong on that one. Crysis will be, Supreme Commander will be, UT2k7 will be....
sorry, i'm not usually a bandwagon-er, but i just think its kinda silly to be buying single core chips these days, if you can afford not to. didn't mean to sound like a know it all...
Hey myocardia. I live in the US. Yea..that is weird. I checked newegg and they dont even carry the 64 4000 cpu. The search begins!! 
GuitarDaddy
Lifer
- Nov 9, 2004
- 11,465
- 1
- 0
The best deal on a single core CPU is the FX-55 at newegg for $139, it's the same San Diego core with 1mb cache as the 4000+ but its clocked higher at 2.6ghz and has the unlocked multi
myocardia
Diamond Member
- Jun 21, 2003
- 9,291
- 30
- 91
It would have been, but it's $189 now: still a really good deal. Here's a Venice 3800, which is the same speed as a 4000, with half the L2 cache, for $109: link. It seems that the supply of 1MB socket 939's is already dwindling. A $109 3800 Venice would be a very good deal, though.
Would the AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ Windsor 2.2GHz 2 x 512KB L2 Cache Socket AM2 Dual Core Processor be good for my gaming purposes?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter