X2 3800+ dual core or 3800+ venice single core?

[brave71heart]

I mainly do some gaming,burn dvd's,watch videos.
Is dual core the way to go?Are games and apps in the near future going to take advantage of dual core or should i just stay with single core for now?
Thanks

 

[Firsttime]

Can you afford to go dual? If you can afford to drop the extra dollars dual is the way to go.

 

[Arkane13131]

multitasking +++ also dual core overclocks very very easily.

 

[brave71heart]

Thank for the info guys.

 

[Lasthitlarry]

If you can afford it, go 3800+ Dual Core, but I don't suggest single core above 3200+.

 

[brave71heart]

Thanks Lasthitlarry.

 

[alimoalem]

Originally posted by: Lasthitlarry
If you can afford it, go 3800+ Dual Core, but I don't suggest single core above 3200+.

 

[darXoul]

Don't get a single core 3800+, that's for sure. It's a small cache 12x multiplier CPU. Instead, get the cheaper 3700+ with larger cache and 11x multi.

BTW, the fact that "dual core overclocks very easily" is not an argument speaking for dual core. 0.09 single cores like the 3700+ San Diego overclock great as well. For this particular CPU, just set FSB to 240, RAM divider to 166 and HTT to x4. Voila, you have a 2.64 GHz processor that will perform on par with the overpriced FX-60 in most games, for a fraction of its price. Just without the second core, that usually doesn't matter anyway.

If you're into heavy multitasking (encoding, etc.), give dual a shot. Otherwise, for gaming and typical desktop activities, I'd actually recommend the a/m single core 3700+. It's cheaper, overclocks like a devil, and is often faster in games than even an equally clocked dual core CPU. Plus, it doesn't have any dual core typical issues. Despite hotfixes and drivers, it seems like not all dual core bugs have been fixed yet. I personally will wait a bit and get dual core once it's really bug-free and actually yields some real performance benefits in games.

 

[brave71heart]

many Thanks u guys.

 

[Unkno]

Originally posted by: darXoul
Voila, you have a 2.64 GHz processor that will perform on par with the overpriced FX-60 in most games, for a fraction of its price. Just without the second core, that usually doesn't matter anyway.

If you're into heavy multitasking (encoding, etc.), give dual a shot. Otherwise, for gaming and typical desktop activities, I'd actually recommend the a/m single core 3700+. It's cheaper, overclocks like a devil, and is often faster in games than even an equally clocked dual core CPU. Plus, it doesn't have any dual core typical issues. Despite hotfixes and drivers, it seems like not all dual core bugs have been fixed yet. I personally will wait a bit and get dual core once it's really bug-free and actually yields some real performance benefits in games.

1. There are multi-threaded drivers for your video card and some games are multi-threaded (though majority of them are not but the future for games would mostly be multi-threaded)

2. Even without multi-threaded games or drivers (multi-threaded drivers offer around 5-15% boost), the dual cores would still offer more performance since all your background processes in your OS is being taken care of with your second cpu

3. Not Bug-free? Name ONE single bug or glitch when your running dual core


btw, as you said yourself, "overclocks like a devil" is not an argument...

 

[M11293]

Am I correct to state that dual core processors don't improve gaming as much compared to a single core, but are able to multi-task much better?

 

[Unkno]

Originally posted by: M11293
Am I correct to state that dual core processors don't improve gaming as much compared to a single core, but are able to multi-task much better?

...i already stated it on the post above you....but i'll make it more clearer i guess.....normally, if a game is not multi-threaded (currently, not may games are....but it would most likely change in the future) you wouldn't see much of a performance boost. you would probably see some boost in performance from the somewhat multi-threaded GPU drivers and more performance depending on what you have running in the background (since the second cpu would be running the OS and all background processes while first cpu running your game or other application)

 

[brave71heart]

Many Thanks all.

 

[darXoul]

Originally posted by: Unkno
1. There are multi-threaded drivers for your video card and some games are multi-threaded (though majority of them are not but the future for games would mostly be multi-threaded)

Yes, you get 0.7 fps in high settings, unless of course the X2 CPU is clocked lower.

Originally posted by: Unkno
2. Even without multi-threaded games or drivers (multi-threaded drivers offer around 5-15% boost), the dual cores would still offer more performance since all your background processes in your OS is being taken care of with your second cpu

Not noticeable unless you're really into heavy multitasking like encoding, scans, etc. As for the 15% performance boosts, we're talking about theoretical benchmarks, i.e. low settings, sky-high fps anyway. Irrelevant.

Originally posted by: Unkno
3. Not Bug-free? Name ONE single bug or glitch when your running dual core

http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3895

http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3758

Two random links to wsg forum threads. Many people also report errors with NfS:MW, Oblivion, and other games. Also, look here:

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTAwMiwxNiwsaGVudGh1c2lhc3Q=

I'm not saying that dual core CPUs are bugged and unstable. I'm just saying that judging from all the reports around the web, it looks like NOT all the bugs and glitches have been eliminated yet. Plus, the performance difference in high settings vs single core is non-existent. You're usually GPU limited or can't see the real difference anyway. If anyone thinks that a dual core CPU will make his games run visibly faster now or in the nearest future, the guy is just naive.