Should I get a dual core?

[DL402]

I'm on a $700-800 dollar budget, and I've decided to build a pc instead of getting it pre-built after asking some people here. My PC will be used for gaming, perhaps some photoshopping, and maybe a bunch of multitasking(music,word,websites,zonealarm,etc.)
I'm wondering would the dual core be better or just a single core? I want it to be AMD too. If I do get a dual core, what do you guys think of the x2 3800?

 

[Beef Taco]

The X2 3800 is a great processor. If you're going to be multitasking like you say, and you have the money, go for it.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Single core would let you buy a much better video card, which will make a huge difference in gaming.

Try looking at all the other $700 - 900 threads and see what you can get.

Decide whether gaming or multitasking is more important, or if you need to save another $100-200 to allow for both.

 

[LED]

I agree totally with DaveSimmons...personally would D/C cause MT is more important to me and another option would be to go for the Opteron 165/175...

 

[DL402]

Would a dual core be able to play most games on medium settings? Or is that just based on the video card?

 

[Tostada]

Originally posted by: DL402
Would a dual core be able to play most games on medium settings? Or is that just based on the video card?

A dual core can play most games on medium settings, but then so can a Sempron.

You sound like you really want a dual-core CPU, so go ahead and get one.

The problem is you haven't given nearly enough information, and the information you have given suggests that you should definitely not get a dual-core CPU.

First off, the cheapest dual-core you can get is the $240 Pentium D 820, but the Pentium D 920 is significantly cooler/faster for $270, and the Athlon X2 3800 is significantly cooler/faster for $320, and you said you wanted AMD anyway.

Which brings us to your $700-800 budget. It's rarely practical to spend almost half your budget on the CPU alone. You haven't even said whether you need a monitor, case, PSU, keyboard or optical drives. It would obviously be much more practical to blow most of your budget on the CPU if this is a simple upgrade.

And then you list your uses as Gaming, "perhaps" some Photoshop, and "maybe a bunch of multitasking." Maybe a bunch?

The bottom line is that without very specific software that is very CPU intensive and multithreaded, you will ONLY see an improvement in performance with the dual-core CPU if you are doing "definitely a bunch" of multitasking. It really looks like dual core will be a waste for you.

Don't get me wrong. I just got an X2 3800 myself. I do a lot of work that totally maxes out the CPU, and I love having Windows running smoothly while something has one of the cores already at 100%.

Also, if you have the money to spare, dual cores are nice because, like you hear so often "It's not really any faster, but it's NEVER slow."

I just don't think it looks like dual cores are what you need here. If you want any real answers, though, you have to be much more specific about:

1) what games you want to play
2) what monitor you have and what resolution you have your desktop
3) if you REALLY think you'll be doing a BUNCH of multitasking
4) what parts that $700-800 needs to buy
5) if you really use Photoshop a lot, what DPI are you working with, are you working in 48-bit, and do you need to have a ton of images open simultaneously, and do you regularly have more than 10 layers in your documents?

 

[SoundTheSurrender]

Unless the game is made for dual core and is processor intensive, a better video card is better.

 

[CraigRT]

Originally posted by: djmihow
Unless the game is made for dual core and is processor intensive, a better video card is better.

QFT.
I bet my 3500 Venice is better in games than an X2 3800 is. It's 2.2 GHz vs (I can't remember either 1.8 or 2.0 on the 3800 X2)

 

[Lasthitlarry]

3200+ for now, dual core for later, much cheaper method.

Trust me, games aren't going to be utilizing dual core for at least a year, at LEAST.

They are great for multi tasking though, so if you like to play games and encode dvds, you can do so with a dual core. Multi tasking is NOT a few other programs running with games, it is like two to many cpu intensive tasks.

I still say wait, $300+ is too expensive for less performance on games.

Like someone else said, you can get a better video card with a single core processor.

 

[Sunrise089]

Single core. Running Word and Firefox while having ZoneAlarm running (don't know why you would use it anyways) and playing an MP3 isn't exactly going to bring a single core Athlon to its knees. Dual core is more for people who will rip a DVD while playing Quake 4 (read: noone) or for people who use one program a great deal that really sees a large gain under dual core.

 

[alimoalem]

get the x2 3800 or maybe even the opteron 165. you should go for dual core

 

[DL402]

Alright, after reading your guys' replies I decided a dual core would be a waste. I plan on playing games like half life 2 on medium settings. I already have the accessories like mouse + keyboard, my monitor is a Dell M780 which can go up to 1280 x 1024, which I currently have on.

What's a good single core and video card combination.

Thanks for the help guys.

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: DL402
Alright, after reading your guys' replies I decided a dual core would be a waste. I plan on playing games like half life 2 on medium settings. I already have the accessories like mouse + keyboard, my monitor is a Dell M780 which can go up to 1280 x 1024, which I currently have on.

What's a good single core and video card combination.

Thanks for the help guys.

Dual core is a bit of a waste now, but processor speeds aren't getting much faster here lately and more and more software is getting written for dual core. Might be good to go with dual core and get a midrange graphics card. The processor should hold its value longer and you can always upgrade the graphics card down the road.

 

[Tostada]

Originally posted by: Golgatha
Dual core is a bit of a waste now, but processor speeds aren't getting much faster here lately and more and more software is getting written for dual core. Might be good to go with dual core and get a midrange graphics card. The processor should hold its value longer and you can always upgrade the graphics card down the road.

This is just plain bad advice when you can get a better-performing single-core CPU for $100 less. You don't buy a $320 CPU just because it'll "hold its value longer." CPUs don't hold value. The 3800+ is 2.0 GHz with 512KB cache per core. For his purposes, this would be similar to a $125 A64 Venice, which is 2.0 GHz with 512KB cache.

You're suggesting spending more on a slower CPU (for his purposes) and then recovering the cost by getting a cheaper video card. Not a good idea for someone interested in gaming on a nice for a person whose primary use is gaming.

 

[Tostada]

Originally posted by: DL402
Alright, after reading your guys' replies I decided a dual core would be a waste. I plan on playing games like half life 2 on medium settings. I already have the accessories like mouse + keyboard, my monitor is a Dell M780 which can go up to 1280 x 1024, which I currently have on.

What's a good single core and video card combination.

Thanks for the help guys.

This setup would work:

CPU: AMD Athlon 64 3700 Retail $214.7 (ZipZoomFly)
mainboard: Biostar NF4ST-A9 (NF4) $75.98 (newegg)
video: PowerColor Radeon X800GTO $115 (newegg)
HDD: Western Digital 250GB SATA WD2500KS $109.79 (ChiefValue)
RAM: Corsair 2 x 1024MB DDR400 $168.49 (ChiefValue)
CD: NEC ND-3550A black DVD-R $43.88 (newegg)
case: Antec SLK1650B black $80.33 (ZipZoomFly)

That CPU & graphics card got over 70FPS in 1600x1200 with 4X AA on in HL2 on Toms Hardware. I guess it's not like you really need 2GB RAM.

 

[Markbnj]

Alright, after reading your guys' replies I decided a dual core would be a waste. I plan on playing games like half life 2 on medium settings. I already have the accessories like mouse + keyboard, my monitor is a Dell M780 which can go up to 1280 x 1024, which I currently have on.

I think you'd be extremely happy with a dual core Athlon. But I am sick of debating it with the luddites .

There have been about 2^32 threads on this topic here. Use the search function and read some of them, would be my advice. This topic has been explored in exhaustive technical detail, and it is fair to say that the dual core comes out on top, more so since the move to multi-threaded graphics drivers from ATI and nVidia, and multithreaded game support in titles like COD2 and Quake4. Not to mention that damn near every process you run on Windows is multithreaded anyway.

 

[Sunrise089]

Originally posted by: Markbnj

Alright, after reading your guys' replies I decided a dual core would be a waste. I plan on playing games like half life 2 on medium settings. I already have the accessories like mouse + keyboard, my monitor is a Dell M780 which can go up to 1280 x 1024, which I currently have on.

I think you'd be extremely happy with a dual core Athlon. But I am sick of debating it with the luddites .

There have been about 2^32 threads on this topic here. Use the search function and read some of them, would be my advice. This topic has been explored in exhaustive technical detail, and it is fair to say that the dual core comes out on top, more so since the move to multi-threaded graphics drivers from ATI and nVidia, and multithreaded game support in titles like COD2 and Quake4. Not to mention that damn near every process you run on Windows is multithreaded anyway.

Its funny how the dual core proponents have so little benchmark support for their position. I understnad many windows processes are multithreaded, but it doens't matter. Please show me a benchmark where dual core outperforms single core when TOTAL COST is taken into account. Example - total budget of $500 for the CPU and GPU and the addiitonal money spent on the dual core CPU offsetting the $$$ taken away from the GPU. It won't. Furthermore last time I checked the multithreaded version of COD2 was slower than the normal version.

OP - its as simple as this: look at the benchmarks here at AT or whereever for the games you want to play, and adjust for cost. You will see dual core is very competitive, but adds ~$200 to the cost of the rig. Then look and see how much more GPU performance $200 will get you. It will normally be much more.

 

[Hacp]

Its pretty hard to get a dual core gaming machine, especially after discounting hte 90 bucks for an OS.

 

[Markbnj]

Please show me a benchmark where dual core outperforms single core when TOTAL COST is taken into account.

I don't see how you can apply such a metric. What standard are you using? Frames per second per dollar?

But anyway, I skimmed the OP's message and didn't see his budget. I do agree that he shouldn't shoot for a dual core with that much to spend.

There's no lack of benchmarks. Look around. Dual core machines rank at the top of just about every category of bench that I have seen, with the sole exception of certain games where they lag just behind the top-end fx chips in fps. I'd sure as heck take -5 fps to get all the other benefits that dual core offers in every other scenario.

 

[Sunrise089]

Originally posted by: Markbnj

Please show me a benchmark where dual core outperforms single core when TOTAL COST is taken into account.

I don't see how you can apply such a metric. What standard are you using? Frames per second per dollar?

But anyway, I skimmed the OP's message and didn't see his budget. I do agree that he shouldn't shoot for a dual core with that much to spend.

There's no lack of benchmarks. Look around. Dual core machines rank at the top of just about every category of bench that I have seen, with the sole exception of certain games where they lag just behind the top-end fx chips in fps. I'd sure as heck take -5 fps to get all the other benefits that dual core offers in every other scenario.

Basically my point is this - the current pricing structure of CPUs and GPUs makes spending more $$$ on the video card a much better idea than spending more $$$ on the CPU (unless you are not going to game of course). When it comes down to deciding which parts to buy, even if you have a very large budget, it oftentimes makes sense to ugrade the GPU to a higher level, but rarely makes sense to upgrade the CPU past the lowest chip with the features you want.

That is the reason the chips normally recommended to people tend to be the 3000+/3200+ (cheapest A64s), the 3700+ (cheapest A64 with 1meg cache) and the X2-3800+ (cheapest dual core), or their Opteron equivalents. There are two reasons - 1) It is VERY easy to overclock a $150 3200+ to perform like a 3700+, but much harder to make a 6600gt perform like a 7800gt. 2) Even if you don't want to overclock, the performance difference between a $150 3200+ and a $300 3800+ will be much less than the difference between a $150 6600gt and a $300 7800gt.

The same applies to dual core - it has its benefits, but normally is you have a budget the $150-200 extra is almost always better spent on the GPU. I agree that if you have the $$$ to spend, you should probably move to a 3800+ and a X1800XT before say a 3200+ and a 7800GTX 512mb, but in any more affordable price bracket dual core would not normally be a better choice than moving to the next GPU level.

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: Lasthitlarry

Trust me, games aren't going to be utilizing dual core for at least a year, at LEAST.

So you don't think any game based on the Unreal 3 engine will be released within the next 12 months?

I wouldn't trust you.

with that said, on a $700-800 budget a singlecore + better videocard is a better solution IMHO.

 

[13Gigatons]

Originally posted by: Tostada

Originally posted by: DL402
Alright, after reading your guys' replies I decided a dual core would be a waste. I plan on playing games like half life 2 on medium settings. I already have the accessories like mouse + keyboard, my monitor is a Dell M780 which can go up to 1280 x 1024, which I currently have on.

What's a good single core and video card combination.

Thanks for the help guys.

This setup would work:

CPU: AMD Athlon 64 3700 Retail $214.7 (ZipZoomFly)
mainboard: Biostar NF4ST-A9 (NF4) $75.98 (newegg)
video: PowerColor Radeon X800GTO $115 (newegg)
HDD: Western Digital 250GB SATA WD2500KS $109.79 (ChiefValue)
RAM: Corsair 2 x 1024MB DDR400 $168.49 (ChiefValue)
CD: NEC ND-3550A black DVD-R $43.88 (newegg)
case: Antec SLK1650B black $80.33 (ZipZoomFly)

That CPU & graphics card got over 70FPS in 1600x1200 with 4X AA on in HL2 on Toms Hardware. I guess it's not like you really need 2GB RAM.

Biostar?

Maybe Asus, DFI or MSI....people should really stay away from low end mobo, especially for a gaming machine.

 

[Neavo]

there are those of us that say go for it, there are those of us that say not to go for the X2.
im one that says dont. you dont need it at this stage, waith 18 months when thats all thats made. Right at the moment, there arent many programs written for hte dual core, not many softwares written in that bit. kinda like the Athlon 64, its a 64 bit chip, most software is 32 bit. thats the problem we had with windows 3.1 going to 98. all programs back then had 16 bit interfaces, so when the 32 bit os came out, the cpu had extra work to do converting 16 bit into 32 bit. same thing with the x2. its a great chip yea, but it doesnt do alot more for ya, go with a AMD 64 3200 or higher, but use a 32 bit OS for now. a good video card (256-512MG) should take alot of work off your cpu, not to mention plenty of ram. so thats where i stand.

 

[Sean Maxwell]

FWIW, I notice an improvement in performance from my 3200+ Winchester (2.6GHz) to my dual core Opteron 165 (2.7GHz) in all fields of testing.

 

[IHYLN]

wow word, music, websites, AND zonealarm? You definitely need a FX-60.