dual core vs. single core- Pls stickie

[JD50]

I have seen this asked many times, by myself and others. I think it would be good to have a stickied thread that discusses this in depth, with the pros and cons of both processors. I know the general consensus is that dual core is mainly for people that multi-task, but its still not very clear to me if a dual or single core is better for a gaming PC. Is it better to get a cheaper single core now and upgrade to a dual core in about a year when they will be better, cheaper, and more utilized? If someone is planning on spending $370 on a processor, should they get the amd 64 4000 or the X2 3800? Is future proofing really possible, with how fast things change in this industry? This is my first PC build and I am by no means an expert on any of this, so I would like to get everyones (especially the professionals) opinions on this in one thread, as it seems like this is a pretty hot topic right now.

 

[imported_Kensai]

X2 3800+.

 

[AnImuS]

Originally posted by: Kensai
X2 3800+.

 

[JD50]

But why pay $350+ for a very new piece of technology that isnt fully utilized now, when you could probably wait 6 months to a year and spend the same amount of money on a much better dual core processor that will be used much more and should have all the kinks worked out of it? Just speculation on my part, but thats why I am asking the more experienced people.

 

[KoolDrew]

Originally posted by: Kensai
X2 3800+.

 

[Crescent13]

Originally posted by: Kensai
X2 3800+.

for multitasking, and F.E.A.R. is supposed to be optimised for dual core, and it's coming out this month.

 

[Bona Fide]

Originally posted by: Crescent13

Originally posted by: Kensai
X2 3800+.

for multitasking, and F.E.A.R. is supposed to be optimised for dual core, and it's coming out this month.

I don't get why people say "get X2 if you like multitasking". The X2 processors are HUGELY smoother, overall, than their single-core counterparts. Even if you don't "multitask", the load of Windows background programs can be allocated to one core, while your single program runs on the other core.

In short, just GET a dual-core. Don't even bother with single-core anymore.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Bona Fide

Originally posted by: Crescent13

Originally posted by: Kensai
X2 3800+.

for multitasking, and F.E.A.R. is supposed to be optimised for dual core, and it's coming out this month.

I don't get why people say "get X2 if you like multitasking". The X2 processors are HUGELY smoother, overall, than their single-core counterparts. Even if you don't "multitask", the load of Windows background programs can be allocated to one core, while your single program runs on the other core.

In short, just GET a dual-core. Don't even bother with single-core anymore.

Do you have to configure it to work like this, or does it automatically do this.

 

[KoolDrew]

Do you have to configure it to work like this, or does it automatically do this.

Automatically.

 

[monster64]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Bona Fide

Originally posted by: Crescent13

Originally posted by: Kensai
X2 3800+.

for multitasking, and F.E.A.R. is supposed to be optimised for dual core, and it's coming out this month.

I don't get why people say "get X2 if you like multitasking". The X2 processors are HUGELY smoother, overall, than their single-core counterparts. Even if you don't "multitask", the load of Windows background programs can be allocated to one core, while your single program runs on the other core.

In short, just GET a dual-core. Don't even bother with single-core anymore.

Do you have to configure it to work like this, or does it automatically do this.

LOL wouldnt it suck if every time you booted windows went through a list of 30+ processes and for each one asked you to choose a core for it to run on?

Assigning windows to run in the background on one core while the app is running on the other will not benefit you at all since games dont use 100% of a single core anyways, and windows only uses 1-2% and even thats only at certain times.

 

[Bona Fide]

Originally posted by: monster64

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Bona Fide

Originally posted by: Crescent13

Originally posted by: Kensai
X2 3800+.

for multitasking, and F.E.A.R. is supposed to be optimised for dual core, and it's coming out this month.

I don't get why people say "get X2 if you like multitasking". The X2 processors are HUGELY smoother, overall, than their single-core counterparts. Even if you don't "multitask", the load of Windows background programs can be allocated to one core, while your single program runs on the other core.

In short, just GET a dual-core. Don't even bother with single-core anymore.

Do you have to configure it to work like this, or does it automatically do this.

LOL wouldnt it suck if every time you booted windows went through a list of 30+ processes and for each one asked you to choose a core for it to run on?

Assigning windows to run in the background on one core while the app is running on the other will not benefit you at all since games dont use 100% of a single core anyways, and windows only uses 1-2% and even thats only at certain times.

It's not so much about actual speed, but it's about having a smoother feel. Everything opens when you want it to, no questions asked. Even if there are 5 things open already.

 

[doc2345]

Originally posted by: KoolDrew

Originally posted by: Kensai
X2 3800+.

 

[ElTorrente]

The only people who say "don't bother - it isn't worth it" are people who don't have one, and can only point to a few benchmarks to base that off of. Those of us that have one strongly urge you to follow suit and you will see the light.

I don't care what benchmarks show or don't show. The fact is, in real world computing, the extra core DOES benefit you. Playing online games and any demanding application is nothing for my computer. My computer at work is a single core pentium 3.6 with 4gigs of ram, and that thing chugs and stutters when it is working hard.

There is no "benefit" to getting a single core. Put a single core up against a dual core at the same clock speed and the dual core wins every time, whether the program is optimized or not. Windows does indeed make use of the extra core when it needs it. A dual core rarely gets so overloaded that you have to wait for it to execute your command. It feels, and IS, faster than single core.

In the coming months and years programs will be optimized to take advantage of the extra computing power. Even NVIDIA is working on drivers that will take advatage of the extra core to process graphics - which would result in something like 25% increase in speed or something like that.

 

[n7]

For those on a budget, X2s aren't an option.

Or for those who simply don't care about anything except running one thing at a time, a single core is a perfectly fine option.

However, overall, the X2 is a better choice.

 

[monster64]

Originally posted by: ElTorrente
The only people who say "don't bother - it isn't worth it" are people who don't have one, and can only point to a few benchmarks to base that off of. Those of us that have one strongly urge you to follow suit and you will see the light.

I don't care what benchmarks show or don't show. The fact is, in real world computing, the extra core DOES benefit you. Playing online games and any demanding application is nothing for my computer. My computer at work is a single core pentium 3.6 with 4gigs of ram, and that thing chugs and stutters when it is working hard.

There is no "benefit" to getting a single core. Put a single core up against a dual core at the same clock speed and the dual core wins every time, whether the program is optimized or not. Windows does indeed make use of the extra core when it needs it. A dual core rarely gets so overloaded that you have to wait for it to execute your command. It feels, and IS, faster than single core.

In the coming months and years programs will be optimized to take advantage of the extra computing power. Even NVIDIA is working on drivers that will take advatage of the extra core to process graphics - which would result in something like 25% increase in speed or something like that.

Those drivers were already leaked and someone here tested them and they showed almost no improvement over normal "single threaded" drivers. Infact, you can get those 80.xx drivers right now if you want.
http://www.3dchipset.com/drivers/nvidia/beta/nt5/index.php
Have fun.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: ElTorrente
The only people who say "don't bother - it isn't worth it" are people who don't have one, and can only point to a few benchmarks to base that off of. Those of us that have one strongly urge you to follow suit and you will see the light.

I don't care what benchmarks show or don't show. The fact is, in real world computing, the extra core DOES benefit you. Playing online games and any demanding application is nothing for my computer. My computer at work is a single core pentium 3.6 with 4gigs of ram, and that thing chugs and stutters when it is working hard.

There is no "benefit" to getting a single core. Put a single core up against a dual core at the same clock speed and the dual core wins every time, whether the program is optimized or not. Windows does indeed make use of the extra core when it needs it. A dual core rarely gets so overloaded that you have to wait for it to execute your command. It feels, and IS, faster than single core.

In the coming months and years programs will be optimized to take advantage of the extra computing power. Even NVIDIA is working on drivers that will take advatage of the extra core to process graphics - which would result in something like 25% increase in speed or something like that.

Great reply, thats exactly what I was looking for, an opinion from people that have used both. I guess as long as all the little bugs have been worked out, there is no downside to getting a dual core. I thought for a while people were having problems with the dual core and gaming, but maybe that was fixed.

 

[aka1nas]

Dual CPU machines in general feel very fast. Regardless of CPU utilization, some stupid process will undoubtedly block or halt for a second or two while you are using your computer and Windows' relatively crappy scheduler won't switch processes correctly. On a single CPU machine, your computer will lag for a second or two. On a dual, this simply doesn't happen as you have another CPU to keep chugging away on something else on.

 

[Gatt]

Originally posted by: JD50
I have seen this asked many times, by myself and others. I think it would be good to have a stickied thread that discusses this in depth, with the pros and cons of both processors. I know the general consensus is that dual core is mainly for people that multi-task, but its still not very clear to me if a dual or single core is better for a gaming PC. Is it better to get a cheaper single core now and upgrade to a dual core in about a year when they will be better, cheaper, and more utilized? If someone is planning on spending $370 on a processor, should they get the amd 64 4000 or the X2 3800? Is future proofing really possible, with how fast things change in this industry? This is my first PC build and I am by no means an expert on any of this, so I would like to get everyones (especially the professionals) opinions on this in one thread, as it seems like this is a pretty hot topic right now.

Dual Core will eventually be widely used for Gaming as compiler technology progresses. Currently there are compilers in development that will attempt to determine if something can be safely threaded out and do so automatically. Once that's done, there'll be a significant increase in Multi-threaded titles. Console development may also accelerate multi-threading as well, since next-gen consoles will be multicore.

Another thing to consider is "What games are out there that can be played on a 4000 that can't be played on a 3800+, and when will there be a difference?" Processor speeds haven't increased dramatically in the last 3 years. By all rights, my 2.6ghz P4 should be choking on the latest games, but it generally does just fine with everything out there. Video Cards are progressing, but CPUs have been at a crawl.

Future proofing would be better served by getting the Dual Core. With so many technologies progressing down the line that would take advantage of Dual Core, getting single core isn't a good choice if you don't intend to upgrade again in the next year or two.

 

[stormont]

I know the answer is "then wait until you can afford one", but if you absolutely cannot afford an X2 w/ 1MB of cache right now, would the better option be to buy a 4000+ with 1 MB of cache or a X2 3800+ w/ 512k per core? Since Monarch has the X2 3800+ for $359 and the 4000+ for $9 more at $368, price would say the X2 but is that the actual better option?

 

[Wisey]

Between a single core and a dual core CPU, it only down to affordability now.

As for which dual core, the best choice is still AMD X2 3800 + because of its low price and its overclockability.

Once overclocked, you almost get the performance of a Intel P4 4Ghz + dual core (for the intel camp).

Betweem AMD X2 CPUs, you can overclock 3800 + close to 4400 to 4600 + with no sweat. So unless you have money and want the fastest, 3800 + is the best of both worlds.

There is no point in waiting. Then there will be quad cores, then more and more innovations.

2 questions:

(1) What is your need?

(2) What can you afford?

 

[RichUK]

Two words Alt Tab

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: aka1nas
Dual CPU machines in general feel very fast. Regardless of CPU utilization, some stupid process will undoubtedly block or halt for a second or two while you are using your computer and Windows' relatively crappy scheduler won't switch processes correctly. On a single CPU machine, your computer will lag for a second or two. On a dual, this simply doesn't happen as you have another CPU to keep chugging away on something else on.

And this is a (somewhat) common complaint with AMD users relative to Intel P4 (with HT) users. Complaints about "lag" and the desktop feeling somewhat "slow" especially with lots of BG processes. Many will argue the P4 w/ HT is "smoother".

The X2 remedies this in a big way.

 

[stormont]

Originally posted by: Wisey

2 questions:

(1) What is your need?

(2) What can you afford?

1) It will be used for gaming paired with a 6800GT in a ASRock 939 motherboard.

2) $400 is the limit. So the 4000+ and X2 3800+ are about the top of my range right now.

 

[ryox03]

I am actually in the exact same boat right now, I have that Asrock 939 Dual SATA2 and am deciding against the same processors. I heard there were issues though with dual cores and games not running right, even on these very forums, yet everyone here is still recommending them, why?

 

[nealh]

Hmm..lets see buy a A64 3000/3200 ..about 1/2 price of dual core and overclock..wait until the dual core drops in price and get a faster chip...

$350-370 is alot of $$$ for a cpu...I have not paid $300 in like 5yrs....yes I know you are getting "2" in dual core but still not worth the price premium to be me...and I can afford whatever chip I want...

CPU hardware loses value so fast I refuse ot buy the latest greatest unless it is a mandatory need

I would buy a A64 3000/3200 and overclock and use the money to buy 2gb of ram or faster videocard or just save it for a new piece of hardware later

Now with that said...I am sure that a dual cpu will seem smoother and is faster..even in everyday stuff but is it worth the price premium right now???

It is for alot of ATers...I am criticizing no one for their choices but it is an individual decision....
I spent $175 for 3200 venice, it is prime95 stable at 2750(thats 750 mhz faster than stock...not sure wht that equals but I am very happy and when dual cores get lower ...I may upgrade)