Processor Upgrade Question

[Continuity28]

Alright, I currently own an AMD 64 4000+. It's the 130mm model, so it does run a bit hot but it's very fast. I believe the equivalent dual core processor would be an AMD 64 4800+ or Opteron 180 - which are prohibitively priced for me.

Would the move to dual core benefit me much, or is my fast single core processor good enough for now?

I mostly game, but also encode and multitask to a fair extent.

 

[Unkno]

If you have a good load of money go for the dual core......or IMO, you should stay with your current one and wait 6 month to see which one is worth upgrading to (conroe or AM2)

 

[hardcandy2]

If the newer processors didn't fit your needs, the older ones should drop in price.
But,
Is Oblivion one of the new games you will be getting? From another forum a while back, "For example, Oblivion, which contains a lot of heavy duty AI and physics has been designed with multi-cores in mind, and the devs have stated that dual core processor should be the gamers preferred choice - of course, we'll see when it's released". In a couple of days we'll see if there is truly an advantage with dual cores in Oblivion. So for a game like Oblivion, a dual core now may be an advantage.
And with encoding, a dual core would not really speed up the encoding unless the encoder you are using can be configured to use dual cores, the second core would let you use a browser and check enail,,etc while the encoding was running.
Have I muddied the water a bit more?
IMHO, if you find a good deal go ahead and get one, if not wait a little while.

 

[996GT2]

Well, do you overclock?

If you do, you can just get the Opteron 165 and OC it to Opteron 180+ speeds

Otherwise you'll probably want to wait for Conroe

 

[Continuity28]

I'm not sure if I'd upgrade to AM2, I'd have to check bencmarks and such at that point in time. I likely won't do any other major changes until Vista is mature enough to upgrade to.

As for Oblivion, yes I definately plan on playing it. In fact it ships tomorrow right? I have it preordered.

I used to overclock small amounts, but lately, I'm a bit more focused on stability while still having performance... and overclocking is usually a gamble. The reason I have the 4000+ instead of another, like 3200+ is because it seems like its hit or miss on whether you can really overclock a certain chip to 4000 speeds. So I opted to pay more for the part I knew would have such speeds. The problem now, is that the dual core AMD options are much more expensive than even my 4000+ was back then. It's hard to tell whether a 4800+ would be a viable enough upgrade. Now while I could get, say, an Opteron 165 and overclock it... it's still a gamble no? I mean if I happen to get a 165 that can't reach 180+ speeds, then I'm pretty much slower than I am now, just with dual core.

So unless multiple cores really shows a difference in the things I do, it seems like I should probably wait for AM2 processors or Intel's new architecture when it's time to move to Vista.

My current setup:
DFI Lanparty NF4 UT SLI-DR
AMD Athlon 4000+
2GB(2x1GB) OCZ DDR-400 2-3-2-5 timings 1T
nVidia GeForce 7900GT (I used to have 6800GT SLI but decided to remove it, I may get another 7900GT)
WD Raptor 150GB
Over 1TB other storage
NEC ND-3550A
TV Card

Well, it seems weird that I'd have an overclockers motherboard, but I mainly chose it for stability (which it is). I've been thinking maybe the Asus A8N 32 Deluxe may suit me better now, but theres no real sense in changing motherboards while mine still works.

Think I should wait for the upcoming changes and Vista before touching anything else?