dual core or not?

Beyond · 12-10-2005, 04:03 PM

my new setup will be mostly used for gaming.

the two options are the 3500+ @ 2.2ghz

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103533

or the x2 3800+ @ 2.0ghz

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103562

yeah there is a price difference, but my question is which should i get? i think in gaming the 3500+ will give me a slight advantage (i think i saw a benchmark of around a 10fps difference)

i guess part of the question is should i invest in one of the lower end dual cores, and would the extra money actually be worth it?

Ctcoyote16 · 12-10-2005, 04:13 PM

I would have to say, from an unbiased opinion, that you should go with dual core. Not only would you basically have twice the processing power (just split between two cores) , but you will be able to really hold on to your cpu for much longer. Dual core apps are already breaking through into the scene, and evetually everything will start to take advantage of it.

*extra side note*- wouldn't you love to alt-tab in an out of every program you have running without a hiccup? lol

**The_Other_One** · 12-10-2005, 04:20 PM

The problem with duel core right now is that many programs currently AREN'T setup for it and some won't work. Now, I've never really played with duel core, but I do know duel processors are slower than single processor setups unless the software actually utilizes it.

Personally I wouldn't go duel core, at least not yet. It's cool technology, but for the most part I don't think it'll really be of much use just yet... Save your money and get a faster single core processor

Bobo · 12-10-2005, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ctcoyote16

Not only would you basically have twice the processing power

no you wouldn't

Quote:

but you will be able to really hold on to your cpu for much longer.

yes

Quote:

Dual core apps are already breaking through into the scene, and evetually everything will start to take advantage of it.

but they aren't right now so you would not notice a real difference

Beyond · 12-10-2005, 04:53 PM

bobo, would you say a dual core or the 3500?

another option is if i get the 3500 i can upgrade for a 2x512 dual channel kit to a 2x1gb, which would help for bf2 obviously.

Bobo · 12-10-2005, 05:00 PM

If it were me, i would get the dual core. But I don't know from a gaming standpoint, because I don't do gaming. Right now I have a 3400, and it serves me just fine for what I need it for. But if you are not planning to upgrade for a while, then get the x2, because the 3500 will be outdated in a matter of a year or two.

dcharks · 12-10-2005, 05:02 PM

Hmmm, I'm having a similiar problem in deciding if I should go duel core. And should I consider getting Windows X64 or stick to Windows XP Pro?

Bobo · 12-10-2005, 05:05 PM

For now stick to regular XP, because XP64 does not support very many user programs, it is for business who need 64-bit and only use 64-bit programs. Every program that you run on your computer right now is 32-bit or 16-bit, and XP64 does not support any of them. A better choice might be longhorn(or whatever the hel they call it) when it comes out. But if you want to discuss this more in depth, please start a new thread.

Modoman · 12-10-2005, 10:36 PM

3800 is not bad. it's great for alt-tabbing out of a game to do something else for a moment, as my friends' single cores cant alt-tab out of a program to do ANYTHING. i can have bf2 running, alt-tab so i dont have to close it, browse the internet, open fruityloops, burn a cd all the same time..
but, at least for me, it has it's setbacks. for one, all sorts of video card drivers and games have lots of little problems/bugs. i lag really bad with some drivers, and some games just dont play like they should (quake 4 lags terribly for no apparent reason, other than a possible incompatibility with my cpu/driver combo)

tweaker · 12-11-2005, 01:37 AM

Get the X2 3800.

Sure the singel core would outperform it in single threaded games but you'll need benchmarks to tell the difference. I won't go back to building with single core chips (higher end machines that is) because I got to say the multitasking performance is just amazing to have. Besides, more and more games are going to be multithreaded in the near future taking advantage of the dual core chips. Just my two cents.

And as far as problems concern, just because you run a dual core CPU you don't necessarily have to use both cores for a specifik task should it be a problem. You can always disable one if needed forcing that specifik task to utilize only one of the cores, I've yet to experience a problem running any of my tasks on both cores though.

Obviously the X2 can be oc as well if your into that.

12-10-2005, 04:03 PM	#1 (permalink)
Beyond Diamond Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Computer Engineering @ NCSU Posts: 1,275	dual core or not? my new setup will be mostly used for gaming. the two options are the 3500+ @ 2.2ghz http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103533 or the x2 3800+ @ 2.0ghz http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103562 yeah there is a price difference, but my question is which should i get? i think in gaming the 3500+ will give me a slight advantage (i think i saw a benchmark of around a 10fps difference) i guess part of the question is should i invest in one of the lower end dual cores, and would the extra money actually be worth it?

12-10-2005, 04:13 PM	#2 (permalink)
Ctcoyote16 Silver Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Too' Oh' 'Tree Posts: 192	I would have to say, from an unbiased opinion, that you should go with dual core. Not only would you basically have twice the processing power (just split between two cores) , but you will be able to really hold on to your cpu for much longer. Dual core apps are already breaking through into the scene, and evetually everything will start to take advantage of it. extra side note- wouldn't you love to alt-tab in an out of every program you have running without a hiccup? lol __________________ AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ Manchester @ 2.5 Ghz XFX Geforce 7800GT 256MB DFI LANPARTY UT nF4 Ultra-D OCZ 2GB (2 x 1GB) Dual Channel Platinum W.D. Caviar SE16 250GB 7200 RPM 3.0Gb/s HD Antec TRUEPOWERII TPII-550 550W All on a DeLL 2005FPW:P 3DMark03- 16,352 3DMark05- 7,710 3DMark06- 4292

12-10-2005, 04:20 PM	#3 (permalink)
The_Other_One Super Moderator Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Lexington, NC Age: 23 Posts: 12,368	The problem with duel core right now is that many programs currently AREN'T setup for it and some won't work. Now, I've never really played with duel core, but I do know duel processors are slower than single processor setups unless the software actually utilizes it. Personally I wouldn't go duel core, at least not yet. It's cool technology, but for the most part I don't think it'll really be of much use just yet... Save your money and get a faster single core processor __________________ Desktop * Athlon X2 4200 \| 2G RAM \| 160G HD \| 7600GT Laptop1 * C2D T5550 \| 3G RAM \| 120G HD \| Intel x3100 Laptop2 * C2D T5250 \| 2G RAM \| 160G HD \| Intel x3100

12-10-2005, 10:36 PM	#9 (permalink)
Modoman Platinum Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 553	3800 is not bad. it's great for alt-tabbing out of a game to do something else for a moment, as my friends' single cores cant alt-tab out of a program to do ANYTHING. i can have bf2 running, alt-tab so i dont have to close it, browse the internet, open fruityloops, burn a cd all the same time.. but, at least for me, it has it's setbacks. for one, all sorts of video card drivers and games have lots of little problems/bugs. i lag really bad with some drivers, and some games just dont play like they should (quake 4 lags terribly for no apparent reason, other than a possible incompatibility with my cpu/driver combo) __________________ X2 3800+ Toledo @ 2.0GHz w/ Zalman 9500 2GB OCZ DC EL Plat. 2-3-2-5 2T MSI K8N-Neo4 2 x WD 36GB SATA Raptors eVga 7800GT @ 470/1200 FSP AX500-A 500w

12-11-2005, 01:37 AM	#10 (permalink)
tweaker Diamond Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Sweden Age: 30 Posts: 2,954	Get the X2 3800. Sure the singel core would outperform it in single threaded games but you'll need benchmarks to tell the difference. I won't go back to building with single core chips (higher end machines that is) because I got to say the multitasking performance is just amazing to have. Besides, more and more games are going to be multithreaded in the near future taking advantage of the dual core chips. Just my two cents. And as far as problems concern, just because you run a dual core CPU you don't necessarily have to use both cores for a specifik task should it be a problem. You can always disable one if needed forcing that specifik task to utilize only one of the cores, I've yet to experience a problem running any of my tasks on both cores though. Obviously the X2 can be oc as well if your into that. __________________ Posting and you - CF edition www.tweaker.se FOLDING FOR THE GOOD OF MANKIND :F@H Team 44358 Last edited by tweaker; 12-11-2005 at 01:43 AM.

12-10-2005, 04:53 PM	#5 (permalink)
Beyond Diamond Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Computer Engineering @ NCSU Posts: 1,275	bobo, would you say a dual core or the 3500? another option is if i get the 3500 i can upgrade for a 2x512 dual channel kit to a 2x1gb, which would help for bf2 obviously.

12-10-2005, 05:00 PM	#6 (permalink)
Bobo banned Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Pittsburgh Age: 16 Posts: 6,623	If it were me, i would get the dual core. But I don't know from a gaming standpoint, because I don't do gaming. Right now I have a 3400, and it serves me just fine for what I need it for. But if you are not planning to upgrade for a while, then get the x2, because the 3500 will be outdated in a matter of a year or two.

12-10-2005, 05:02 PM	#7 (permalink)
dcharks New Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 12	Hmmm, I'm having a similiar problem in deciding if I should go duel core. And should I consider getting Windows X64 or stick to Windows XP Pro?

12-10-2005, 05:05 PM	#8 (permalink)
Bobo banned Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Pittsburgh Age: 16 Posts: 6,623	For now stick to regular XP, because XP64 does not support very many user programs, it is for business who need 64-bit and only use 64-bit programs. Every program that you run on your computer right now is 32-bit or 16-bit, and XP64 does not support any of them. A better choice might be longhorn(or whatever the hel they call it) when it comes out. But if you want to discuss this more in depth, please start a new thread.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode