To dual core or not to dual core! That is the question!

[Tangogulf]

Hello all;

Well, I'm looking to buy a gaming rig. I'm capable of upgrading every 3 years, and I'm faced with the big decision. I have the money in hand right now, and may not have it later on if I wait. So the purchase is coming soon. The big decision dual or single core.

1/Are these dual core processors going to be used widely for games or not?

2/ Even if they are used for games, will the single core AMD 64 4000 that I buy now, be viable in two years ( I know it will be a little outdated, but will I be able to use it?)

Thanks for any and all help

 

[Brian23]

If you're not going to upgrade for 3 years, then deffinently get dual core right now. It's better now and it will be better in the future.

 

[Gamer X]

I don't know why anybody should buy single cores anymore.

 

[pulsedrive]

Look at it this way. The dual cores will run your games just as well as a single core of the same speed. So that isn't really an issue. But the dual cores will also multitask INFINATELY better. A lot of people say well if all I am doing is gaming then why not spend the money on an FX. Well yes, but how many people don't have at least 5 things runnning in the sys tray when you boot up? if not MUCH more than that. Everyone's computer multitasks, and dual core can only make that run smoother, so in actuallity the dual core will run your games a little smoother than a single core of the same speed because it has once core all to itself.

 

[BlingBlingArsch]

u call a dozen services and appz in the background multitasking and that only a dualcore will be able to run that smooth?
and why should anybody buy single cores anymore? cuz they are much cheaper and their only weakness is in heavy multitaksing scenarios. I doubt the op is a heavy multitasker, eg he likes to play counter-strike and render his new map in the background plus photoshopping the latest screenshots.
Iam still of the opinion, most ppl dont need two cores though i like the enthusiasm of them AMD fans.
the op should just take a look, what exactly he is doin with his comp. No massively multitasking, no need for X2.

 

[Griffinhart]

Originally posted by: BlingBlingArsch
and why should anybody buy single cores anymore? cuz they are much cheaper and their only weakness is in heavy multitaksing scenarios.

This seems to be a common misconception. Single core weakness is in heavy multitasking AND in Multi-Threaded apps, which there are a suprising number of.

While, I agree, looking at today's list of games Dual Core won't bring much to the table. On the other hand, if he does any editing of home video's or Photo's Dual core's are a huge improvement over single cores, even when not multi-tasking.

I use Photoshop Elements 2.0 (it came free with my $90 Epson r-200 Printer) and Pinacle Studio 9 (a low cost video editor) And they are both multi-threaded and Dual core performance in these apps would crush any single core chip.

Even if they are used for games, will the single core AMD 64 4000 that I buy now, be viable in two years ( I know it will be a little outdated, but will I be able to use it?)

Currently no games support Dual Core, but, supposedly, the next unreal game, Elder Scrolls: Oblivion and Age of Empires 3 (all coming late this year or the first half of next) will support them.

But, the 4000+ should remain a viable gaming CPU for several years yet. In 3 years you may be starting to turn down some game effects (maybe, but maybe not) depending on what new features games add, but you won't be wondering if you'll be able to run a game on your machine.

I personally recommed going Dual core if you can afford it, but that's personal preference. If you are tight on cash and only plan to game with this box then there is nothing wrong chosing the 4000+.

 

[fishbits]

Both paths you are looking at are good ones. Given cash on hand, I'd definitely go with the X2 and sacrifice a few hundred megahertz for a much more capable and responsive system. The 4000 will game a little better. The X2 will multitask a LOT better. And if you're running Windows, you multitask.

You asked if the 4000 would be viable in 2 years. My answer was "yes" based on cpu speed boosts of the last two years. It's an even bigger "YES" when it dawns on me that we're really going to see fewer and further-spaced speed boosts over the next two years (hence the whole need for multi-core). I don't think the A64 or X2 that you get today will become outdated as quickly then as a comparably placed cpu in the past would. Of course for future-proofing I'd look more to the X2 as developers will be tapping into that second core soon. Remember, it's not just AMD going this route, but Intel as well.

 

[Mickey21]

Originally posted by: BlingBlingArsch
u call a dozen services and appz in the background multitasking and that only a dualcore will be able to run that smooth?
and why should anybody buy single cores anymore? cuz they are much cheaper and their only weakness is in heavy multitaksing scenarios. I doubt the op is a heavy multitasker, eg he likes to play counter-strike and render his new map in the background plus photoshopping the latest screenshots.
Iam still of the opinion, most ppl dont need two cores though i like the enthusiasm of them AMD fans.
the op should just take a look, what exactly he is doin with his comp. No massively multitasking, no need for X2.

This is exactly right... However in light of the 3 year upgrade pattern, the X2 is a consideration. Otherwise, the single core is better bang for the buck. This will be the op's decision really. Personally I find that people talking about best performance normally upgrade sooner than 3 years, but oh well... In any case, the dual core for everyone mentality is what I truely find the newest common misconception. Single core weakness in heavy multitasking AND Multi-Threaded apps? WTH? You call them weak in multitasking? Both core designs are great processors. Sure, Dual cores gain an advantage in multitasking and such, but that doesnt make them far superior. All of a sudden dual core owners and proponents want us to throw our single cores away, what is up with all of this?

 

[Tangogulf]

Thanks for the reply everyone. I guess one of my concerns is that if I buy the single core, I can get a faster clock speed, which runs most of todays games faster. My only concern is if this will hold true in the future.

Griffinhart
Ive noticed on previous posts that you play EQ. I too am an EQ2 player. One of the reasons why I'm upgrading is to support this game. I understand that there is a procedure to get it to run on a single core and that makes everything nice and stable. Has that been your experience as well?
Anything else you can say about how it is running compared to a single core?

Just so you know, Im looking at 2 gig ram, a GeForce 7800 GT on a 19" LCD along with whatever processor I get. Anything you can recommend or add?

Thanks all.

 

[PKing1977]

All of a sudden dual core owners and proponents want us to throw our single cores away, what is up with all of this?

I think you are misreading what ppl are saying about dual core processers. When someone asks about what they should upgrade to, then the choice is an X2 processer. If someone already has a fast single core chip they are not in the market to upgrade. I do not see any reason to spend just as much money on a new system in terms of processer cost for a FX single core when you can spend that same money on a X2. People really do more multitasking then they realize. How many ppl walk away from a computer when they burn a dvd (why should you you?) Nobody is saying throw out your single core chips, but what we are saying is simply, if you are in the market to build a new pc then you should really get an dual core chip over a single core.

PKing

 

[Mickey21]

Originally posted by: Tangogulf
Thanks for the reply everyone. I guess one of my concerns is that if I buy the single core, I can get a faster clock speed, which runs most of todays games faster. My only concern is if this will hold true in the future.

Griffinhart
Ive noticed on previous posts that you play EQ. I too am an EQ2 player. One of the reasons why I'm upgrading is to support this game. I understand that there is a procedure to get it to run on a single core and that makes everything nice and stable. Has that been your experience as well?
Anything else you can say about how it is running compared to a single core?

Just so you know, Im looking at 2 gig ram, a GeForce 7800 GT on a 19" LCD along with whatever processor I get. Anything you can recommend or add?

Thanks all.

Of course in the future newer OS's and software will provide for Dual cores more effectively. But what day will that be? What game will that be? It wont likely be any current game you have right now or really OS. Just ask yourself over and over again. "Do I multitask on multitasking capable OS'es with multitaskable software and games?" If you say no, than single core it. If you say yes, than dual core it. If you say not right now, but I will in the future, judge your risk factor and decide from there. Likely a dual core, but still up to you.

 

[LordSnailz]

Seems like a lot of people are opting for the dual core, but if you bring price and overclockign into the picture, wouldn't a single core make more sense?

 

[rise]

i agree. if you actually have to ask if you need an x2 than chances are you are better off saving your $$ and get a single core.

a 4000+ wouldn't be my choice. you matters well get a 3000+ or 3200+ venice and oc it.

 

[Mickey21]

Originally posted by: PKing1977

All of a sudden dual core owners and proponents want us to throw our single cores away, what is up with all of this?

I think you are misreading what ppl are saying about dual core processers. When someone asks about what they should upgrade to, then the choice is an X2 processer. If someone already has a fast single core chip they are not in the market to upgrade. I do not see any reason to spend just as much money on a new system in terms of processer cost for a FX single core when you can spend that same money on a X2. People really do more multitasking then they realize. How many ppl walk away from a computer when they burn a dvd (why should you you?) Nobody is saying throw out your single core chips, but what we are saying is simply, if you are in the market to build a new pc then you should really get an dual core chip over a single core.

PKing

I built this latest version of my main rig not more than 3 weeks ago. So in fact I do think single cores have worth even today. Dual core is nice, but anyone who will upgrade in the next 1.5 years will still likely want a single core. Why? Because it will very likely take longer than that to even get software in enough quantities to even start to truely justify the dual cores. Right now, Dual processors is a marketing gimmic to push future changes, I am all for that, just saying that the educated not buy into it foolheartedly. Any performance enthusiast will usually upgrade in less than two years. My point, is in another year, dual cores will be the defacto option, but I still feel in today we have great single cores for the money (not necessarily FX's - but even San Diego based 3700's and higher). There is no point spending 100, 200, 300, 400+ dollars just to get dual cores. A 90nm 3700 is very fast for the money at less than $300. The cheapest X2 is about $400 dollars and hardly as fast as that 3700, much less overclocked.

I dont think people tend to multitask as much as you think they do. Burning DVD's while playing a game is not the norm, and I love how conveniently we forget about all the OTHER components. The bus get saturated with bandwidth needs and the overall slower components. Multitasking in not ideal for drive intensive demands of the home user, it is ideal for processor intensive demands like video editing, rendering, photo editing, etc. The average user will not see much of an increase when the rest of their system is bogging down on DVD writing, game play, etc... With the power of today's processors, the average "multitasking" of browsing the internet while listening to Brittney Spears MP3's, and chatting on AIM is hardly a difficult task for any processor to work up a sweat...

What truely is the scenario you speak of in multitasking that the single CPU would grind to a halt? Once you think of that example, tell me what percentage of people you feel do that series of actions? I would think it would be a fairly small number... People at home are just not power users... Unless you count all the spam they unknowingly are running. Yeah let's give the spam more power so they can multitask send out crap...

 

[Mickey21]

Originally posted by: rise4310
i agree. if you actually have to ask if you need an x2 than chances are you are better off saving your $$ and get a single core.

I couldnt have said it better myself...

 

[Griffinhart]

Originally posted by: Tangogulf
Thanks for the reply everyone. I guess one of my concerns is that if I buy the single core, I can get a faster clock speed, which runs most of todays games faster. My only concern is if this will hold true in the future.

As it turns out, an X2 is a little faster in games than a single core of the same speed/cache. But, it's not like either the X2 or the 4000+ is lacking in gaming. You would be hard pressed to notice any difference between it and the 4400+ X2 that I current run for any game. I expect that for a large number of games the status quo will remain for a time and eventually the X2 will start pulling ahead as games start using the second core.

Griffinhart
Ive noticed on previous posts that you play EQ. I too am an EQ2 player. One of the reasons why I'm upgrading is to support this game. I understand that there is a procedure to get it to run on a single core and that makes everything nice and stable. Has that been your experience as well?

Yep, All you do is tell EQ to use a single core(using a utility or task manager) and it runs with no problems at all.

Anything else you can say about how it is running compared to a single core?

In the games I play, there's not much difference really(yet). In everything else I do, there is a huge difference. The X2 just makes for a better computing experience and gets my other jobs done faster.

The way I see it. The X2, at worse, will be just as good at gaming as the 4000+ in the future. At Best, it will be much better as the second core comes into play. For other stuff, it is still much better at everything else, which it what makes it such an atractive processor.

Just so you know, Im looking at 2 gig ram, a GeForce 7800 GT on a 19" LCD along with whatever processor I get. Anything you can recommend or add?

Thanks all.

Nice Rig then. Ignoring the whole processor thing. What I would strongly consider:
-An SLI Motherboard. While you are only getting one video board, being able to go SLI in the future without buying a new MB is an attractive option
-A SB Audigy 2 (or better) sound board. It will offer a modest improvement in performance for gaming as well as offer better sound than most onboard solutions.

Both would, absolutely, be on my to buy list if I were building a new PC today.

Back to the CPU question for a moment. The 4000+ is a great CPU. But, after using a 3500+ for a year (and loved it) then going to a 4400+ (same clock speed) I absolutely love the improvements I have gotten by just swaping the processor. It's definately a more pricey option, but In my opinion, it was well worth it. Especially given my computing requirements.

 

[Griffinhart]

Originally posted by: LordSnailz
Seems like a lot of people are opting for the dual core, but if you bring price and overclockign into the picture, wouldn't a single core make more sense?

Why? you can OC a dual core just as well as a single core. I personally, don't OC though.

My guidelines for building a PC is to get the best you can afford. If a DC is in your price range is there really a reason to not go DC?

 

[danklumpp]

Why are new technologies always getting ahead of themselves? 64-bit CPUs were out long before 64-bit OSs came out. Now dual-core is out way ahead of "dual-threaded / dual core" applications.

And by the time dual core applications get out, people will want an X3 already (if there will be one).

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: BlingBlingArsch
u call a dozen services and appz in the background multitasking and that only a dualcore will be able to run that smooth?
and why should anybody buy single cores anymore? cuz they are much cheaper and their only weakness is in heavy multitaksing scenarios. I doubt the op is a heavy multitasker, eg he likes to play counter-strike and render his new map in the background plus photoshopping the latest screenshots.
Iam still of the opinion, most ppl dont need two cores though i like the enthusiasm of them AMD fans.
the op should just take a look, what exactly he is doin with his comp. No massively multitasking, no need for X2.

It is not just multitasking.....will you guys get this througfh your skulls!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


In multithreaded apps which accounts for most encoding (video) and editing apps and CAD rendering apps you see the benfits now....

speed testing at 2662mhz

http://home.comcast.net/~duvie23/x2-2662-11242-tmpgenccpu1.JPG

http://home.comcast.net/~duvie23/x2-2662-11242-tmpgenccpu2.JPG

2x faster then single cpu.....200% increase

http://home.comcast.net/~duvie23/cinebench2003-11242-2662.JPG

My best at 1.8ghz winchester at 2.66ghz was 376....87.2% increase...the other one was running 533ddr though and 7400's in sandra...maybe tweaking later will get that up more...

http://home.comcast.net/~duvie23/x2-2662-11242-povray37-bench-1cpu.JPG

http://home.comcast.net/~duvie23/x2-2662-11242-povray37-bench-xcpu.JPG

This newest beta version of Povray is fully multithreaded as seen in cpu task manager and subsequent 2x better score. This benchamrk doesn't draw picture but is the basic benchmark for comparison at their website.

http://home.comcast.net/~duvie23/x2-2662-11242-ADT2004-1CPU.JPG

http://home.comcast.net/~duvie23/x2-2662-11242-ADT2004-MULTI.JPG

As you can see the multi version of the test is multithreaded a bit. I had to take screen pic just at same time cause it wont post an end time. As you can see there is a 52+% gain...This was converting 11 frames to AVI 640x480...This will drastically cut down by 2 hour renderings for DVD quality 24fps clips...


The single core crowd around here is mostly gamers and that is fine....I can respect their choice....They need to get their battle cry straightened out though. It is not all mutlitasking....

Take that 2.6ghz TMPGenc time up there...It would take a single core cpu of around 5ghz to compete..How long do I have to wait for that speed, gentlemen??? I want the speed now and the X2 gave it to me....I spend half as much time then before to leave me more time to do it agin if I want to change some of the parameters are to just do more of them....

 

[Tangogulf]

Alot of great responses and food for thought here, so my thanks again to you all.

The fact of the matter is, that yes, I do multi-task. DVD and CD Burning is just one type of multi-tasking that I do. As well, I do run Pinnacle Studio 9 and do some photo editing as well.

This thread has pointed out to me, that I need to have a perception shift on how I do things on my computer. My computer use is much much more then games. However, I have learned in the past that games are some of the most processor intensive applications for a computer. Hence, I state that it is a gaming rig to emphasize the fact that I need some pretty serious horsepower. So yes, I do multi-task and I do hate it when I must walk away from the computer to do some of these things.

This doesnt change the fact that I do not want to lose processor speed in running games on a dual core. I will be using EQ2 and Battlefield 2 on this rig. I'm not sure if the few hundred megahertz will make much of a difference now or not.

Just so you know, Im currently using a 2.8 gig rig with a 128 meg card. It has some serious bottlenecks as it is only 4 x agp, and the ram although 1 gig, isnt top of the line.

If I go dual core to facilitate some of this multi-tasking, anyone got some suggestions on a dual core that is within the $500 candian range (I can give or take a couple of hundred on that), that will insure good (improved processing power) etc.

Thanks again alll

 

[Griffinhart]

Originally posted by: Mickey21

Originally posted by: rise4310
i agree. if you actually have to ask if you need an x2 than chances are you are better off saving your $$ and get a single core.

I couldnt have said it better myself...

I have friends that said the same thing about Broadband vs dial up. Not a single one of them would ever consider going back to dial up.

 

[danklumpp]

By the way, I'm starting a small online custom computer store soon. Will an X2 be a much more attractive option than say a 3700 or 4000?

 

[Griffinhart]

Originally posted by: Tangogulf
The fact of the matter is, that yes, I do multi-task. DVD and CD Burning is just one type of multi-tasking that I do. As well, I do run Pinnacle Studio 9 and do some photo editing as well.

For this reason alone. Go Dual Core. Pinacle Studio 9 us multithreaded and you will see a HUGE improvement here.

 

[Duvie]

Gaming for most part will take 50% cpu usage the minute they start running even if you shut them down in the background. Their priority will usually not relingish it either. What an X2 will do and even what is considered minor mulitasking would be doing a final rendering on you edited video in Pinnacle 9 at the speed of an equal singel core while playing the game at the speed of an equal single core....With the singel core the encoding for themost part would not get anything done or bog the system down and have your fps hit the floor....Even minor things like DVD burning will steal enough cppu usgae to take a 10-15% hit in fps...which could be make or break for some ppl and their visual settings...

 

[rise]

Originally posted by: Griffinhart

Originally posted by: Mickey21

Originally posted by: rise4310
i agree. if you actually have to ask if you need an x2 than chances are you are better off saving your $$ and get a single core.

I couldnt have said it better myself...

I have friends that said the same thing about Broadband vs dial up. Not a single one of them would ever consider going back to dial up.

nominated for the worst analogy of the year