Upgrade to Dual core

[GMtheBest]

I am currently running a single core socket 939 processor and just purchased a AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+. Other than a possible BIOS update, is there anything else that should be upgraded in terms of drivers ? I remeber seeing a thread about this a while back regarding Windows and AMD patches\drivers that should be installed but I can't seem to find it.

 

[Kromis]

There is this one X2 driver that fixes some issues with dual cores. I'll try to find it for ya.

Found it: http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/Tec...lResources/0,,30_182_871_13118,00.html

Get the dual-core optimizer at the top of the page and the X2 driver at the bottom of the page! X2 driver is second from the bottom.

 

[mendocinosummit]

I would also get patches for every game you play and programs. Some have increased their performance with Dual Cores with updates.

 

[imported_Crusader]

Err.. you mean DOWNGRADE to dual core if you are gaming, in most cases.

Intel offers no high end single core solution.

 

[GR8Madmax]

Here is a recent thread that might be of help:

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=28&threadid=1900618&enterthread=y

 

[customcoms]

Downgrade? Its an X2, overclock it to 2.5ghz+ per core and no games will have any cpu limited problems!!!!

 

[secretanchitman]

Originally posted by: Crusader
Err.. you mean DOWNGRADE to dual core if you are gaming, in most cases.

Intel offers no high end single core solution.

sure you can, just disable one core!

or wait for conroe L or whatever the single core version is called...

 

[imported_Crusader]

Originally posted by: customcoms
Downgrade? Its an X2, overclock it to 2.5ghz+ per core and no games will have any cpu limited problems!!!!

Originally posted by: Brent Justice
Dual Core Problems


In our gameplay we did come across some problems that we believe are associated with dual core CPUs, games and possibly drivers. There were times in some games, such as F.E.A.R. that we would ?feel? a slowdown in the framerate. It was as if we were moving along smoothly and then out of no where, unexpectedly in situations not typical of bringing the framerate down we would feel a change in the framerate. Now, it wasn?t enough of a drop to bring us below 30 FPS or cause the game to not be playable. It was however a slight annoyance because when you are at a high framerate and the framerate drops, let?s say for example from 80 FPS to 50 or 40 FPS you feel that change in the framerate and it may bother you.


We feel this is a problem with dual core CPUs because we did not experience this problem with the single core 2.8 GHz Prescott or our regular single core FX-55 we test with on a regular basis. This was only felt on the dual core CPUs. We aren?t sure if this is a game problem with the way it interacts with the CPUs or if it is a driver problem as well, all we know is that it happened with the dual core CPUs and it didn?t happen with the single core CPUs.


Another issue which really isn?t a problem is some weird framerate capping in World of Warcraft with dual core CPUs. Head back to page 6 of this evaluation and look at the World of Warcraft graphs. Look at the Pentium 4 2.8 GHz Prescott single core CPU graphs. You can see that the framerate has a maximum that goes well up to 100 FPS. Now look at the dual core CPU graphs. It seems the framerate is being capped at around 65 FPS. This is extremely odd, we verified VSYNC was off, our monitor was at 75 Hz anyways at 1600x1200, yet the framerate seemed to be capped at 65 FPS. This only occurred with the dual core CPUs. It is a weird issue but one that wasn?t detrimental to gameplay since 65 FPS is plenty of performance for smooth gameplay. It was just worth noting because there does seem to be something different going on in World of Warcraft between single and dual core CPUs.

Currently, AMD holds the gaming lead in the single core realm.
Which is the only way to escape all the caveats detailed by HardOCP.

If you are gaming, if you have a fast single core A64 you are sitting great. In fact it might be a rather foolish decision to go dualcore in any shape or form (X2 of C2D) if you are a hardcore gamer.

I game daily, and I dont think it would be worth the move to introduce plenty of the potential issues detailed by Brent Justice when all you need is a 2.4ghz A64 or higher to take advantage of nearly any GPU configuration available today.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: customcoms
Downgrade? Its an X2, overclock it to 2.5ghz+ per core and no games will have any cpu limited problems!!!!

:thumbsup:

Recommending single core chips when an X2 3800+ is so cheap now is pretty stupid.

 

[sdsdv10]

Originally posted by: Pabster

:thumbsup:

Recommending single core chips when an X2 3800+ is so cheap now is pretty stupid.

Would you mind expanding on this? I have been checking into an upgrade for my Dad's computer (currently Socket A 2500+). For him, the best solution looks like a 3800+ Venice core running at 2.4GHz (@ $107) rather than a Manchester core 3800+ x2 running at 2.0 GHz (@ $152). He doens't multi-task so the extra 20% clock speed would be more noticable than having the dual cores. Am I wrong in thinking this?

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: sdsdv10
Would you mind expanding on this? I have been checking into an upgrade for my Dad's computer (currently Socket A 2500+). For him, the best solution looks like a 3800+ Venice core running at 2.4GHz (@ $107) rather than a Manchester core 3800+ x2 running at 2.0 GHz (@ $152). He doens't multi-task so the extra 20% clock speed would be more noticable than having the dual cores. Am I wrong in thinking this?

No, you're totally right. Dual-core is NOT for everyone. It's just that most of the people who have went dual-core think that since they've spent all that money, you should have to do the same.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: sdsdv10
Would you mind expanding on this? I have been checking into an upgrade for my Dad's computer (currently Socket A 2500+). For him, the best solution looks like a 3800+ Venice core running at 2.4GHz (@ $107) rather than a Manchester core 3800+ x2 running at 2.0 GHz (@ $152). He doens't multi-task so the extra 20% clock speed would be more noticable than having the dual cores. Am I wrong in thinking this?

Go with the X2. That $47 buys you A LOT of processing power. The newer 3800+ seem to be doing 2.4 on stock volts very easily. Then you'd have the equivalent of TWO 3800+ at your disposal.

Everything is smoother with the X2, and don't let any single core fanboys tell you otherwise.

 

[sdsdv10]

myocardia and Pabster,

Thank you for the replies. Regarding overclocking, my Dad is 74 years old and lives in a different state. This isn't going to be an option as there is no way I can get there to help trouble shoot if he has problems. I need something simple and stable out of the box. Also the $50 difference would add like 25% to the cost of the update ($107 plus MB @ $75=$182) verses an X2 ($152 + $75= $227). Not much in terms of total dollars, but a good percentage extra. Everything else will be reused. Thanks again, I will keep this in mind.

Off topic, being from Milwaukee I am guessing that Pabster is a reference to Pabst Blue Ribbon Beer. Is this correct? It would also go along with your avatar.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: sdsdv10
Off topic, being from Milwaukee I am guessing that Pabster is a reference to Pabst Blue Ribbon Beer. Is this correct? It would also go along with your avatar.

If I could have a penny for every time I've been asked that...

It's actually nothing to do with Pabst Blue Ribbon (Though my Grandpa was a big fan ), it is a variation of my last name. Just kinda stuck

 

[imported_Crusader]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: sdsdv10
Would you mind expanding on this? I have been checking into an upgrade for my Dad's computer (currently Socket A 2500+). For him, the best solution looks like a 3800+ Venice core running at 2.4GHz (@ $107) rather than a Manchester core 3800+ x2 running at 2.0 GHz (@ $152). He doens't multi-task so the extra 20% clock speed would be more noticable than having the dual cores. Am I wrong in thinking this?

No, you're totally right. Dual-core is NOT for everyone. It's just that most of the people who have went dual-core think that since they've spent all that money, you should have to do the same.

This is right.

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: sdsdv10
Would you mind expanding on this? I have been checking into an upgrade for my Dad's computer (currently Socket A 2500+). For him, the best solution looks like a 3800+ Venice core running at 2.4GHz (@ $107) rather than a Manchester core 3800+ x2 running at 2.0 GHz (@ $152). He doens't multi-task so the extra 20% clock speed would be more noticable than having the dual cores. Am I wrong in thinking this?

Go with the X2. That $47 buys you A LOT of processing power. The newer 3800+ seem to be doing 2.4 on stock volts very easily. Then you'd have the equivalent of TWO 3800+ at your disposal.

Everything is smoother with the X2, and don't let any single core fanboys tell you otherwise.

This is wrong.

All you have to do is read HardOCPs analysis to find PLENTY of dualcore issues with gaming. I'm not against dual core, but its not the way to go yet for an uber hardcore gamer.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Crusader

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: sdsdv10
Would you mind expanding on this? I have been checking into an upgrade for my Dad's computer (currently Socket A 2500+). For him, the best solution looks like a 3800+ Venice core running at 2.4GHz (@ $107) rather than a Manchester core 3800+ x2 running at 2.0 GHz (@ $152). He doens't multi-task so the extra 20% clock speed would be more noticable than having the dual cores. Am I wrong in thinking this?

No, you're totally right. Dual-core is NOT for everyone. It's just that most of the people who have went dual-core think that since they've spent all that money, you should have to do the same.

This is right.

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: sdsdv10
Would you mind expanding on this? I have been checking into an upgrade for my Dad's computer (currently Socket A 2500+). For him, the best solution looks like a 3800+ Venice core running at 2.4GHz (@ $107) rather than a Manchester core 3800+ x2 running at 2.0 GHz (@ $152). He doens't multi-task so the extra 20% clock speed would be more noticable than having the dual cores. Am I wrong in thinking this?

Go with the X2. That $47 buys you A LOT of processing power. The newer 3800+ seem to be doing 2.4 on stock volts very easily. Then you'd have the equivalent of TWO 3800+ at your disposal.

Everything is smoother with the X2, and don't let any single core fanboys tell you otherwise.

This is wrong.

All you have to do is read HardOCPs analysis to find PLENTY of dualcore issues with gaming. I'm not against dual core, but its not the way to go yet for an uber hardcore gamer.

All kinds of issues I don't notice? And my x2 3800+ at the same speed as my 3000+ (both overclocked) gives an advantage in fps to my x2 3800+

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Crusader
This is wrong.

All you have to do is read HardOCPs analysis to find PLENTY of dualcore issues with gaming. I'm not against dual core, but its not the way to go yet for an uber hardcore gamer.

No, it is not.

Most of the "issues" have been resolved. New game titles are becoming more and more multithreaded and SMP-aware. You'd be a fool right now to waste money on a single core.

Also, where does he mention his dad is a "hardcore gamer"?

The fact is, a dual core processor yields incredible smoothness and responsiveness across the board, whether sitting at the desktop or fragging away in BF2 while encoding a DVD.

 

[TheRyuu]

Not recommending a dual core cpu is kinda silly at the price some of them are at right now.

After installing the AMD Cpu drivers, Windows XP Hotfix/AMD DC Optimizer you get NO issues with dual core.

I (and many others) have NO issues with dual core cpu's. Anything that is not smp aware will only use one core. Simple as that.

A dual core CPU is also great for other things too. Like doing a whole bunch of sh!t at once and have the computer feel and respond like it's doing nothing

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: wizboy11
Not recommending a dual core cpu is kinda silly at the price some of them are at right now.

After installing the AMD Cpu drivers, Windows XP Hotfix/AMD DC Optimizer you get NO issues with dual core.

I (and many others) have NO issues with dual core cpu's. Anything that is not smp aware will only use one core. Simple as that.

A dual core CPU is also great for other things too. Like doing a whole bunch of sh!t at once and have the computer feel and respond like it's doing nothing

Wiz, I think you grossly overestimate the amount of knowledge the average 75 year-old has of computers, and what they'll be using their computers to do. I think that the average 75 year-old would definitely rather spend $107 for a faster 2.4 Ghz processor than spend $150 for a dual-core 2.0 Ghz.

First of all, no 75 year-old has ever even thought about using any software that's SMP-enabled, and never will. They don't make e-mail or web browsing software that's SMP-enabled, and they never will. My dad is actually 75, and I had him get a Skt. 754 Sempron 3100-based system. He was so happy with it. Of course, he can't figure out how to use the DVD/CD burning software that it came with, but, to him at least, it's better for e-mail and web browsing, so he's happy as can be. Oh, and my dad has been around computers since I got my first one in 1980, and has owned one since 1999, so it isn't as if it's his first.

 

[sdsdv10]

Thanks again myocardia for confirming what I was thinking. It doesn't matter to me if this the best upgrade or not. It is reasonable and at a good price (<$200 total). As you said, it should increase my dad's enjoyment in the way he uses his computer. That is all that matters to me.

 

[videopho]

I do know one thing does get much better...My 3dmark06's cpu score has jumped to a whopping, almost 100% gain from a single x64 3500+ to my current x2 3500+ both at equal speed or 2.42ghz, thanks largely to dual core power. Otherwise everything else seems to run about the same. except when I do mutlitasking stuffs

 

[imported_Crusader]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Crusader
This is wrong.

All you have to do is read HardOCPs analysis to find PLENTY of dualcore issues with gaming. I'm not against dual core, but its not the way to go yet for an uber hardcore gamer.

No, it is not.

Most of the "issues" have been resolved. New game titles are becoming more and more multithreaded and SMP-aware. You'd be a fool right now to waste money on a single core.

Also, where does he mention his dad is a "hardcore gamer"?

The fact is, a dual core processor yields incredible smoothness and responsiveness across the board, whether sitting at the desktop or fragging away in BF2 while encoding a DVD.

You'll have to take that up with Brent Justice and Kyle Bennett then, because they're telling you: you're wrong.

To be fair, if you can cite me where each of these issues have been corrected, I'll concede you are correct.

Originally posted by: Brent Justice
Dual Core Problems


In our gameplay we did come across some problems that we believe are associated with dual core CPUs, games and possibly drivers. There were times in some games, such as F.E.A.R. that we would ?feel? a slowdown in the framerate. It was as if we were moving along smoothly and then out of no where, unexpectedly in situations not typical of bringing the framerate down we would feel a change in the framerate. Now, it wasn?t enough of a drop to bring us below 30 FPS or cause the game to not be playable. It was however a slight annoyance because when you are at a high framerate and the framerate drops, let?s say for example from 80 FPS to 50 or 40 FPS you feel that change in the framerate and it may bother you.


We feel this is a problem with dual core CPUs because we did not experience this problem with the single core 2.8 GHz Prescott or our regular single core FX-55 we test with on a regular basis. This was only felt on the dual core CPUs. We aren?t sure if this is a game problem with the way it interacts with the CPUs or if it is a driver problem as well, all we know is that it happened with the dual core CPUs and it didn?t happen with the single core CPUs.


Another issue which really isn?t a problem is some weird framerate capping in World of Warcraft with dual core CPUs. Head back to page 6 of this evaluation and look at the World of Warcraft graphs. Look at the Pentium 4 2.8 GHz Prescott single core CPU graphs. You can see that the framerate has a maximum that goes well up to 100 FPS. Now look at the dual core CPU graphs. It seems the framerate is being capped at around 65 FPS. This is extremely odd, we verified VSYNC was off, our monitor was at 75 Hz anyways at 1600x1200, yet the framerate seemed to be capped at 65 FPS. This only occurred with the dual core CPUs. It is a weird issue but one that wasn?t detrimental to gameplay since 65 FPS is plenty of performance for smooth gameplay. It was just worth noting because there does seem to be something different going on in World of Warcraft between single and dual core CPUs.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Crusader
You'll have to take that up with Brent Justice and Kyle Bennett then, because they're telling you: you're wrong.

One would hardly call {H} a definitive authority.

To be fair, if you can cite me where each of these issues have been corrected, I'll concede you are correct.

These clowns apparently couldn't figure out how to set affinity and force these "problem" games to run on a single core. In fact, they don't even mention it.

Now stop spreading your FUD.

 

[imported_Crusader]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Crusader
You'll have to take that up with Brent Justice and Kyle Bennett then, because they're telling you: you're wrong.

One would hardly call {H} a definitive authority.

I'd rank them quite far and beyond you?

To be fair, if you can cite me where each of these issues have been corrected, I'll concede you are correct.

These clowns apparently couldn't figure out how to set affinity and force these "problem" games to run on a single core. In fact, they don't even mention it.

Now stop spreading your FUD.

Thats your "resolution" to these problems? Disable a single core, thats quite the value.

Originally posted by: Pabster
Most of the "issues" have been resolved.

WoW and FEAR are pretty major games.
Its a disservice to the enthusiast community to not get the word out about this.
Not something I'd consider "spreading FUD".
This guy, and everyone else, deserves to know and I'm letting them know.

Sounds to me like you are trying to hide the truth, and decieve people on this for some reason.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Crusader
Thats your "resolution" to these problems? Disable a single core, thats quite the value.

You're not disabling anything, n00b. You're simply telling the game to only run on a single core. Dual Core 101 for you.

WoW and FEAR are pretty major games.
Its a disservice to the enthusiast community to not get the word out about this.
Not something I'd consider "spreading FUD".
This guy, and everyone else, deserves to know and I'm letting them know.

And I play both, on numerous dual core machines, with NO TROUBLE. As do MANY, MANY others. This has been hashed and rehashed a thousand times. You're spreading FUD.

Sounds to me like you are trying to hide the truth, and decieve people on this for some reason.

Yeah, I guess I better disable the search feature so no unsuspecting purchaser will query and read the numerous threads vis-a-vi dual core and gaming.