I'm looking at either a system with an AMD64/opteron single core CPU with 2 7900GT's or
an X2/opteron with 1 7900GT. thanks.
an X2/opteron with 1 7900GT. thanks.
Single core with SLI or Dual core with single GPU
- Thread starter Smartazz
- Start date
I would go with the dual core CPU. You can always add a graphics card later, and on top of that I think SLI is mostly overrated, esspecially if your on a small resolution monitor. Dual core wont help with games though, so if your a huge gamer you might want SLI, but if you use your computer for other things, i would go X2 or Dual opteron.
FallenHero
Diamond Member
- Jan 2, 2006
- 5,659
- 0
- 0
Dual core WILL help with games. It will give obvious benefit with multithreaded games (which exist already and will come out in greater numbers in the future). In addition, having two cores lets one core handle an intensive task like running your game while the other core quietly sucks up all the random OS stuff, antivirus, etc.
I plan to play just about every game @ 1600 by 1200.
$1300 was what I was planning to spend on the build, but I'll spend up to around $1500 if I need to.
For a purely gaming machine, SLI will provide a lot more power and overall better framerates for you at 1600x1200, whereas the dual core CPUs only provide a decent increase in 1 game right now (Quake 4), which doesn't have any benefit at all at 1600x1200.
So, let's use Quake4 as the example. Dual core makes the biggest difference in this game moreso than any other game out there right now. However, it does nothing at 1600x1200. But, take SLI into account. At 1600x1200 a 7900GT does 61fps in Q4. 7900gt SLI at the same res/settings does 95fps. Huge difference.
Quake 4 might not be your favorite game, but I use it as an example because the dual-core patch actually does better than any other game out there with dual-core. If FEAR, Oblivion, COD2, or any other popular game is important to you, dual-core does nothing at ALL resolutions, and SLI provides about a 60-80% increase in performance at 1600x1200 in those games.
Hopefully, soon, games will begin to take advantage of dual-core chips, but, for right now, according to benchmarks, they don't (especially at high res). I say "according to benchmarks" because numbers don't take into account the "feel" of the game. I don't have a dual-core CPU, so I can't comment that the games "feel" faster, but many users have said they do. I don't want to ignore their claims because I have noticed similar results in upgrades I have made too-- such as moving to 2GB of ram for BF2. Benchmarks showed 0fps increase, yet all of the stuttering disappeared immediately, making the game much more enjoyable. Does dual-core do something similar? I don't know.
IMO, your best buy would be neither of those configurations you put out there. I suggest buying a x1900xt and an Opty 165. With hot deals out there, that combo can run you less than $700. But, I do see a lot of benefit from running a 3000+ Venice with SLI 7900GTs for a little over $700. The reasons I didn't go with SLI this time was 1) the extra cost wasn't worth it (SLI GTs didn't perform much better than the XT in Oblivion) 2) only 256mb of ram 3) no HDR+AA.
So, let's use Quake4 as the example. Dual core makes the biggest difference in this game moreso than any other game out there right now. However, it does nothing at 1600x1200. But, take SLI into account. At 1600x1200 a 7900GT does 61fps in Q4. 7900gt SLI at the same res/settings does 95fps. Huge difference.
Quake 4 might not be your favorite game, but I use it as an example because the dual-core patch actually does better than any other game out there with dual-core. If FEAR, Oblivion, COD2, or any other popular game is important to you, dual-core does nothing at ALL resolutions, and SLI provides about a 60-80% increase in performance at 1600x1200 in those games.
Hopefully, soon, games will begin to take advantage of dual-core chips, but, for right now, according to benchmarks, they don't (especially at high res). I say "according to benchmarks" because numbers don't take into account the "feel" of the game. I don't have a dual-core CPU, so I can't comment that the games "feel" faster, but many users have said they do. I don't want to ignore their claims because I have noticed similar results in upgrades I have made too-- such as moving to 2GB of ram for BF2. Benchmarks showed 0fps increase, yet all of the stuttering disappeared immediately, making the game much more enjoyable. Does dual-core do something similar? I don't know.
IMO, your best buy would be neither of those configurations you put out there. I suggest buying a x1900xt and an Opty 165. With hot deals out there, that combo can run you less than $700. But, I do see a lot of benefit from running a 3000+ Venice with SLI 7900GTs for a little over $700. The reasons I didn't go with SLI this time was 1) the extra cost wasn't worth it (SLI GTs didn't perform much better than the XT in Oblivion) 2) only 256mb of ram 3) no HDR+AA.
For your purposes, if you had to pick just one, go SLI. If you can afford to do both, I'd recommend it though.
Clearly from my Sig you know what I would do. Go for the dual core, especially if you are going to OC. You can always pick up another video card, or 1 8 series card later. But you don't want to bother upgrading your chip later.
Yes single core is the way to game TODAY but will not necessarily be the case tomorrow.
Go Dual no doubt about it.
If u are sure you will be goin down the SLI route get the 7900 GT.
else just go with the x1900xt
If u are sure you will be goin down the SLI route get the 7900 GT.
else just go with the x1900xt
m1ldslide1
Platinum Member
- Feb 20, 2006
- 2,321
- 0
- 0
Absolutely right. Plus, COD2 released a patch for dual-cores, and lots more developers should be following suit. 7900GTX SLI is the overpriced thing of the now, while the X2 processor will last you a couple of years in a gaming rig. When does directX 10 come out again?
Unfortunately, the COD2 patch does absolutely zilch to improve performance.
Why not upgrade the chip later? It's just as easy as upgrading a video card. One might say even easier since there is no need to uninstall drivers, install hardware, and reinstall drivers.
I say, if you're mainly into gaming, buy a dual core when it finally helps out in the games you want to play at the settings you want to play them. And, right now, the only game is Quake4 and the only res it helps with is 1280x1024 or lower. The dual-core chips will still be available "tomorrow" and will probably be cheaper. Now, if you're doing any video encoding or whatnot with your machine, you will find that dual-core chips will be MUCH more efficient... not to mention that it will also allow you to encode video WHILE playing a game, which could be beneficial to you if you need to do both at the same time.
SLI, the dual core will do next to nothing for gaming. At most a few more fps while the SLI will get you 30%-50% fps improvement, more in some games.
Dual core is lovely, for DVD shrink and other applications that need CPU power. A fast single core is more than enough for gaming.
Dual core is lovely, for DVD shrink and other applications that need CPU power. A fast single core is more than enough for gaming.
I hear what you are saying deadseasquirrel, just seems like you can pick up a nice opty 165 and OC it and well, if you are going to go 939 its not like you will have much of an upgrade path after that since no more 939's are comming out after that, figure the 939 opty 165 will last me until AMD has moved past AM2 an on to something else, and the I'll upgrade again.
I purchased my rig trying to maximize price/performance ratio. But if the OP has the money to make more upgrades in the future, than maybe a Sandy 3700 and SLi 7900's would work.
I spent $1300 on my rig (didn't have to buy a monitor so it all went into the PC), and couldn't have afforded a penny more and am happy that I will not have to upgrade the processor for a while.
I purchased my rig trying to maximize price/performance ratio. But if the OP has the money to make more upgrades in the future, than maybe a Sandy 3700 and SLi 7900's would work.
I spent $1300 on my rig (didn't have to buy a monitor so it all went into the PC), and couldn't have afforded a penny more and am happy that I will not have to upgrade the processor for a while.
i second dual core cpu and single video card. sli is a waste of money and is only a marketing scheme. dual core cpu will not only aid in gaming but in almost everything else u do with your computer. u can decode dvd's while gaming, no single core cpu can do that. also have multiple IE/mozilla windows open (10) limewire, word, itunes and still be able to play your games
Not really, buying a SLI motherboard or a crossfire one is pretty bloody stupid if you're not going to use it, but if you buy SLI from the start it's a pretty good idea, in this case the OP ends up with a graphics card system that is $100 more than the list price of the 7900GTX and gets better graphics performance to go with it.
Dual core lets me surf the web faster!?! Cooool.
Who really does this? Honestly, when i game i have itunes open and that's about it. As for decoding dvds while gaming, unless you've got a very carefully set up HD system you can't, as the HD will be working it's arse off reading/writing data for the DVD rip, so map changes and the like will be so sluggish as to be noticable.
Dual core is nice, but while it might help out occasionally, SLI will give better results every single time you play the game.
So I just got a new computer, for gaming, development, and whatever else, and pretty much randomly ordered parts with only a vague idea of what i was doing, and I got an a8n-sli mobo. So how does sli work - do you need two identical graphics cards for optimal performance increase? Or if I wait a while and then purchase a better card a few months later, will I still get a pretty good boost in performance? thx.
the short answer: you'll get more immediate and noticable performance from an SLI setup for gaming.
You need 2 nearly identical cards, ie two 7800GTs, they don't have to be the same manufacturer, but you can't run a 7800GT with a 7900GTX.
You do get a decent graphics improvement going SLI, but it is only a good plan to do it when you build the computer, or if you are definitly going to upgrade the graphics within 6 months or so. After that reality kicks in and it's not such a great idea.
Yeah, it really is the best idea to just buy them both right away. I know it's an expensive outlay what with 2 cards and all, but you the "add another later" just doesn't work out too well. Look around on FS/FT or ebay... people aren't dumping 7800GTs for $150.
Back in January of '05, I bought SLI 6800GTs for about $700 total. It took about 8 months before a single card was released that could simply match it (7800GTX). So, I kept those cards for 13 months without needing to upgrade-- playing many games at 16x12 with 4xAA/8xAF (until FEAR and COD2 showed up). Granted, I just sold both of them and then paid $100 out of pocket for an XTX, but it proved to me that SLI has some very good staying power, and is certainly not a marketing scheme like Louis suggests.
I agree completely. I love price/performance. And, for gaming, SLI can perfectly fit the bill. Like my example above showed, you could spend:
a) $111 for a 3000+ Venice and $630 for SLI 7900GTs
or
b) $325 for a Opty 165 and $315 for that same 7900GT
Choice A costs about $100 more, but provides 50-100% improvement over choice B in many games. To me, that's one helluva price/performance ratio. Choice B does has some significant advantages... just none with gaming yet.
For hardcore gaming today, especially at 1600x1200 with all the bells and whistles, I'd recommend going SLI over dual core. Alot of people seem to be forgetting the OP can always upgrade to a dual core CPU when they get cheaper too, and by then maybe more than 2 games will support it.
m1ldslide1
Platinum Member
- Feb 20, 2006
- 2,321
- 0
- 0
But are the dual-core CPUs really going to get cheaper? Seems like I read that with the move to AM2 these 939 chips will maybe enjoy a slight price drop but then as manufacturing ceases prices will actually go up. I sure hope not - I'd really like to get an X2 before I move to AM2 or conroe or something in '07...
I hear what you are saying Deadseasquirrel, and I guess if I was trying to build a rig specifically for gaming and was cool getting a new CPU in the near future, I'd go with option b.
But my priorities are a little different and when the Nividia 8 series come out they will probably out perform the 7900's in SLi, and I can't keep upgrading all the time.
But my priorities are a little different and when the Nividia 8 series come out they will probably out perform the 7900's in SLi, and I can't keep upgrading all the time.
The interesting thing is, with SLI, you can usually put off upgrades even longer, because the new cards do not out-perform the old SLI configs. Take last generation as an example. The 7800GTX came out and simply matched the 6800GT/U SLI config. And that was like 8 months after you could buy the 6800gt SLI setup. So, anyone with a 6800gt SLI setup had pretty much no reason to upgrade to the GTX since they had been using a "gtx" for the last 8 months anyway. And, since the 512GTX was, for the most part, MIA, 6800gt SLI users had no nVidia single card solution to upgrade to that offered a good increase in performance until the 7900GTX (and even that is hard to find lately). Next generation could tell a completely different story. We'll have to wait and see.
It's all about personal preference. As much as I like SLI, I didn't even choose it this upgrade because it didn't make sense for me. But I was sure happy to have the choice.
My main point is: don't believe the BS posters throw around without any links/benchmarks/facts to back them up. SLI is not a "marketing scheme". And dual-core doesn't help with gaming at all really (except in 1 game and at lower resolutions in that game). Whereas dual-GPU works in almost every new game out there now (and for the past year), offering 50-100% increase in performance, depending on the game/settings.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 18K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter