to X2, or not to X2

[govtcheez75]

I'm thinking of getting an X2 processor, but to tell you the truth...I don't think I need it. Would I do much better by going with a fast single core, or an FX?

The only thing I do on my AMD/Windows machine is play games and burn DVD's. I use my Powerbook for everything else.

Will X2 give me noticeable gains over my current 3800+ Newcastle in gaming? I don't overclock my 3800+ and I don't plan to overclock my X2.

What are the reasons to get an X2? (I read that it's good for video rendering, and etc...)

And yes, I'm too lazy to search through the 100 other threads on X2 which are all pretty confusing.

 

[corpseofworms]

If you're gaming, I'd stick with single core. By the time multithread games become mainstream, all current procs will be crap.

 

[jose]

http://forums.anandtech.com/searchresults.aspx


Opps, guess the search didn't work..

With a X2 you could do both burn & play at the same time..

 

[Hacp]

Depends on your current rig. If your getting a whole new computer, I would suggest x2, but if you are just planning on upgrading from a Venice or Sandiego, I would not suggest the X2...

NVM, Don't bother with the x2. Your next upgrade should be m2...

 

[AnImuS]

You shouldnt.

 

[ProviaFan]

You don't need one.

 

[fstime]

If you dont need one, DONT GET ONE.

Get a 3000+ and overclock.

 

[Hacp]

He has a 3800 newcastle, so he doesn't need to get a 3000+ and overclock.

 

[Shimmishim]

if you're itching to upgrade and you want the best gaming processor w/o overclocking, then the fx-55 is your best bet... it'll be 400 mhz faster than your 3800+ but then again... is $800 worth it for 400 mhz?

you decide.

 

[imported_Kensai]

Do it.

 

[cronic]

do it

 

[jpeyton]

3500+ Venice or 3700+ San Diego

[/thread]

 

[TGS]

No, it's pointless unless you either do

A) Heavy Multi-tasking

B) Use multi-threaded software

If you do not fall into either of these categories, then don't even pull out the wallet to do a funds check.

/thread

 

[imported_X]

Also consider how often you are likely to upgrade. If you are the type that only upgrades every 2-3 years, you should get an X2 to take advantage of upcoming games that will be optimized for it.

 

[Vegitto]

Originally posted by: X
Also consider how often you are likely to upgrade. If you are the type that only upgrades every 2-3 years, you should get an X2 to take advantage of upcoming games that will be optimized for it.

What he said.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: TGS
No, it's pointless unless you either do

A) Heavy Multi-tasking

B) Use multi-threaded software

If you do not fall into either of these categories, then don't even pull out the wallet to do a funds check.

/thread

Does listening to iTunes while playing an intensive game count as "heavy multi-tasking"?

EDIT: I'm asking because my current computer can only handle iTunes and a game that is not processor intensive. Would a 3200+ AMD be able to handle, say, iTunes + Counter Strike:Source at the same time, or would an X2 be required for that?

 

[blckgrffn]

An X2 would be much better at that, but probably not "necessary".

I would expect some pauses if you run iTunes in the background though when it goes to disk, etc.

Nat

 

[Randum]

no, wait til games take advantages of dual core next summer, or just get a HT p4

 

[govtcheez75]

I don't do much multitasking. My powerbook handles most multitasking very well (I've had 13-15 windows open at once and playing music, and running just about every MS office suite at the same time). The only multitasking I've ever done on my gaming machine is play music and surf the web.

....I'm now reconsidering and thinking that an FX-57 (or 55 if I can't afford the 57) might be my best bet.

 

[BlingBlingArsch]

Originally posted by: blckgrffn
An X2 would be much better at that, but probably not "necessary".

I would expect some pauses if you run iTunes in the background though when it goes to disk, etc.

Nat

not even close to the kind of multitasking a dualcore is necessary for.

 

[blckgrffn]

Ever run media player in the background and played some games? LOL, do you "need" dual core for it? Hell no! Reason to justify it? Maybe

Nat

 

[TGS]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: TGS
No, it's pointless unless you either do

A) Heavy Multi-tasking

B) Use multi-threaded software

If you do not fall into either of these categories, then don't even pull out the wallet to do a funds check.

/thread

Does listening to iTunes while playing an intensive game count as "heavy multi-tasking"?

EDIT: I'm asking because my current computer can only handle iTunes and a game that is not processor intensive. Would a 3200+ AMD be able to handle, say, iTunes + Counter Strike:Source at the same time, or would an X2 be required for that?

Unless iTunes is a huge resource hog, I can run winamp and EQ2 without issues with either. Music players don't tend to be high cpu utilization programs. Unless you are running some serious visualization stuff full screened I don't think running it will impact you CS much. The real question is how do you hear people while playing CS:S and listening to music?

I'm running a 3000+ and I don't get any stuttering problems, with games hammering the utilization and running a music app in the background. I don't think I have since running a 1400+XP