• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

What's the future of single core?

A

aLeoN

Member
I'm planning to get a 3200+ Venice, 7800GT, and a bunch of other parts together for a $1500 system. I'm mostly playing games on it though I do very light photoshop work so I don't see why I should get anything much higher. Point of this topic is, once I get this I probably won't see another new system till at least 2 years down the road (since 2006 many new comp parts are coming out), and I'm just wondering how long it would last me.

Games are still single threaded for the time being right? Once the advent of true mainstream 64-bit and multithreaded games come out, would I be left in the dust or would it just be a slight performance setback? True, it might be too early to tell but I'd have less heisitation on just buying the whole system.
 
You should be fine. Video cards matter much more in games than the CPUs do. By 2-3 years, you should be purchasing a dual core procesor system just when more and more software programs become SMP aware.
 
If you overclock, you should be fine. If you had a limited amount of money to spend, I'd get a 6800 GS and an Athlon 64 3700+ at newegg for $209 US. That might be the best deal around at the moment. But since the socket 754 3700+ is no longer made, that deal at newegg is the only one around at an OK price (that and a few mobo/CPU deals on eBay).
Another choice might be to get a single core socket 939 3800+ or 4000+ and a 6600 GT. When the Geforce 8 come out, you'd get that.
Almost anything is better than that stupid X2 3800+. UT2004 mainly uses the CPU and that X2 3800+ just doesn't cut it for me.
 
Well, do you mean the future, or now? I don't think you'll be unhappy with your system. I bet you'd be happier with dual core, though. In five years you may not be able to buy a single core system, but for now I'm sure a lot more single cores are being sold than dual.
 
Basically this platform will be my first ever OC system so I'm going to take it slow and try to get as much out of $1500 as possible. The only reason why I don't want to look at Opty 165/X2's are because I rarely multitask in a way where it slows my system performance to unbearable levels. I've had celerons after a 233mhz K6 and whenever I do anything intensive (i.e. CD burning in those days) I'd just leave the system on and go do something else. The price premium to what I'm going to do with it isn't worth it imo. Would it help you guys understand where I'm coming from more if I posted what I am putting together?

That's why I ask if single core could still be "in" in a couple of years as I don't feel dual/multi core would meet my needs at a good price.
 
Single-core will exist for a long long time, I dont see semprons and celerons turning dual-core anytime soon, anyway, so most PCs out there will be single-cored for a while yet.
 
You're probably right, however many people don't multitask not because they think they don't do it naturally, but because they physically cannot do it. You can't really do much with your computer when you're compressing some media files.

But you could be one of the many exceptions; if the most intensive thing you do is gaming (definately not uncommon), then you definately won't need dualcore.
 
As far as the "real" future of the single core is concerned, we will see a Sempron 3800+ single core for socket M2 according to an AMD roadmap that was published on this site. (click on CPU/Chipset)

I have to admit I have a hard time dealing with the idea we'll only have dual cores after a while. Some people are complaining of weird compatibility issues. Like having to disable one core to run certain programs for example. Well, how can you game and multitask with one core? I get the sense you need single core to be safe from all the issues dual core users complain about. Sure, some will jump in this thread and say they have no problems and accuse some users of not knowing how to do a Windows install. Whatever, I see no reason to rush.

I read UT2007 won't even be completely optimized for dual (or multi) cores because it would be difficult for Epic to put in the man hours to do it. The tools for them to write multi-threaded software are not even available. AMD and Intel rushed out with dual cores before even making the tools to write for them available to programmers. That's one of the reasons why they say it will be a couple or three years before we see widely available multi-threaded software.
 
I don't encode nor burn CD/DVDs more than once a month if even. Last time I loaded up Nero was June and that was to burn something for a friend. I guess it would be nice if I could write a paper and play a game at the same time but biologically I can't 😉

Another question I have would be if multithreaded apps run horrible on single core or with just a small performance hit?
 
if its multithreaded, it will run close to twice as fast on the dual-core (ideal but it depends on what computations are being done and the quality of the programming)

 
The tools for them to write multi-threaded software are not even available. AMD and Intel rushed out with dual cores before even making the tools to write for them available to programmers.
Click to expand...

This is not even remotely close to true. Most of the benefit of multiple cores comes from the operating system and graphics driver layers, where application programmers don't have to do anything to get the benefit.

As far as tools used in writing multi-threaded software, the only tools they lack, or have lacked for the last ten years, are a) time, and b) knowlege. Everything else is there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top