Should I go dual core.

[K0ldFuz1on]

I'm looking to build a new computer in about a weekish time, and I was wondering if I should shell out the extra cash to get an X2 3800, or just go with an A64 3200. The main use would be for gaming (That really doesnt look spelled right). Im planing on getting a 7800 GT and two gigs of RAM for the system also.

Thanks for any advice.

 

[sonoma1993]

I would go dual core with the x2 3800, it more futureproof and if you are going with nvidia, from what I understand they are having drivers coming out for the video cards that'll support dual core cpu.

 

[Duvie]

Will you multitask any?? If maybe get the Dual core....If you OC you should get it to 2.4-2.5ghz range and have a ery fast gamer regardless...

How long will you keep this rig?? If for 1-2 years get dual core....It is likely more and more games will start coming to the forefront to take advanatge of the dual cores...

Can you Afford it?? If so get the dual core....

If you said NO to any of these then just get the best single core A64 you can afford...

 

[seanp789]

The 81.26 drivers (multithreaded) for nvidia jsut gave me a 20fps frame boost in BF2 at 1600x1200. With dual core of course. Dual core is far from main stream, but that will be changing early 2006.

 

[Markfw]

If you can afford it, go dual-core, its that simple.

And it you can't, give more plasma or blood, and then you can afford it ! (thats what paid my book fees in college)

 

[piddlefoot]

dual all the way no question about it , everyday l find more reasons why my x2 dual 4400+ is better than my fx55, right down to gaming online.
Dual core is still better for gaming everyday online, cause you just dont need 3 or 4 gig clock core cpu's, for 32 bit games, face it we could really make a game look sick with 64 bit code , we still use 32 halving the cpu 's potential , your graphics card is more important , so all this rubbish about the FASTEST GAME PC is well rubbish, its really the best bench and now your talking pure overclockers so back to the real world , l own an fx55 and a 3200, 2600, 1800, x800 pro , xt, xtpe, 5600 nvidea fx , 7800 gtx nvidia, well the gtx 7800 is plugged into the dual 4400+, in real world gaming online the fx55 CANNOT COMPARE, the dual never gets backround lag , ALL FX CPUS DO, and as for price fx 57 or 4400+/4800+ dual, there around the high end yea but if you can afford it and if you want the best or close to it price dont really come into it, you just want the best, so l stand by the duals as being a BETTER cpu , not as fast so to speak , but then lets look at AMD and intel, Intel were always usually faster core but the amd could crunch more numbers less clock totally different archutecture,making it FASTER in alot of cases, so ask yourself again how vital a clock of 3 gig really is RIGHT NOW . Then realise with 64 bit round the corner your clock speed is pppfffttt in the wind, they just wont need it for a while yet, they will slap more and more cores together for a while, and when some drivers and program coding comes for dual cores we ll see then the true SPEED of these 64 bit chips, on 32 bit its all limited.
DUAL ALL THE WAY ,been gaming since the commodore 64, NOTHING even comes close to dual online game performance.



l have a broken hand [ roofer work ] so l cut n pasted this from diff topic, as some will notice...

This is that 128 bot bf2 program for any dual core gamers wanting to peak that second core.........





http://www.aaenterprisesonline.com/old_index.htm

 

[INM8]

Go dual, you wont regret it

 

[Rage187]

I can't regret going to a 3800 in the least.

Downloading a game demo - check
Running Bittorrent - check
Converting a VOB to MPEG4 - check
Having media streamed to my television - check
Playing GTA:SA, Alt Tabbing out and checking CPU usage - check

44% usuage on both cores = priceless

 

[absinthe]

I was going to go dual core, but decided to go HARDCORE instead.

[/being funny]

-abs

 

[forumposter32]

Can I be a devils advocate here and suggest otherwise?

What fascinates me about these threads is the fact that people who recommend dual cores also intentionally leave out the fact that many people have posted messages here about problems with dual cores and gaming. (Not trying to start a flame war, just stating the fact.)

The way I look at it, what are we going to see BTX form factor becoming more popular, high definition DVDs or Blue Ray discs (they're not even decided on a new standard), the Geforce 8 (shader model 4/Directx10), Windows Vista, DDR2 RAM on the socket M2 and possibly other advantages to that platform. Seriously, I want to wait at least 18 months to go multi-core. I might even wait until they come out with quad cores and everything will be "ready" (lots of multi-threaded software/games and lower prices for the new stuff like HD DVDs).

I got the stuff in my sig just this month. And I'm thrilled about the UT2004 performance.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: forumposter32
Can I be a devils advocate here and suggest otherwise?

What fascinates me about these threads is the fact that people who recommend dual cores also intentionally leave out the fact that many people have posted messages here about problems with dual cores and gaming. (Not trying to start a flame war, just stating the fact.)

The way I look at it, what are we going to see BTX form factor becoming more popular, high definition DVDs or Blue Ray discs (they're not even decided on a new standard), the Geforce 8 (shader model 4/Directx10), Windows Vista, DDR2 RAM on the socket M2 and possibly other advantages to that platform. Seriously, I want to wait at least 18 months to go multi-core. I might even wait until they come out with quad cores and everything will be "ready" (lots of multi-threaded software/games and lower prices for the new stuff like HD DVDs).

I got the stuff in my sig just this month. And I'm thrilled about the UT2004 performance.

Good point, but as that has died down so has many of the concerns....Based on the number of ppl who have jumped on te X2 bandwagon and the less and less complaints about it I find it reasonable to belive many ogt a hndle on it by simply doing the research and reading up on the need for the X2 driver, fresh install of the OS, etc...

 

[Griffinhart]

Originally posted by: forumposter32
What fascinates me about these threads is the fact that people who recommend dual cores also intentionally leave out the fact that many people have posted messages here about problems with dual cores and gaming. (Not trying to start a flame war, just stating the fact.)

I think most X2 owners don't find it to be an issue. Many games, like Battlefield 2 have no issues, at least not for me, while other games like EverQuest do. But, I have yet to have a problem that wasn't solved by setting the games affinity. So, it's less of a problem and more of a caveat to me. It's definately something to be aware of, however, I don't think it's enough to detract from the processor. As more people adopt X2's the problem will be less and less frequent as developers start planning for it.

 

[SGtheArtist]

The reason I wouldn't go to dual core right now is that the software that can fully utilize the multi core processors is limited.

Therefore if you are only running 1 program that supports it and ALL the rest of your programs dont then you will have to set the affinity and manually distribute/load balance the single thread programs across multiple cores.

Now if someone does (or has already) developed a freeware "single thread program load balancing" application then it maybe worth it.

NOTE: if this app. exists please post a link.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: SGtheArtist
The reason I wouldn't go to dual core right now is that the software that can fully utilize the multi core processors is limited.

Therefore if you are only running 1 program that supports it and ALL the rest of your programs dont then you will have to set the affinity and manually distribute/load balance the single thread programs across multiple cores.

Now if someone does (or has already) developed a freeware "single thread program load balancing" application then it maybe worth it.

NOTE: if this app. exists please post a link.

What are you expecting?? Dont you see the iunherent issues with that??? Each person will want or consider certain activites more important and that can change all the time....I say use the affinity or the priority setup ahead of time...Ultimately it may be as lkess a number of clicks then your miracle program you call for....no one program will work for all peopels needs....

I run many apps now that by default or low or idle in nature and so I dont veen have to run into this issue.

I ran 2 instances of folding...decided to start up a quick encode and while I did that I continued to play video and download files from the internet. Those 2 activites stole cycles they needed away from the encoding app that is dual core optimized and would have taken 100% by itself. The foilding at home instances went idle until the encoding fnshed and took what was left after the video playing and downloading apps took theirs...Again I suggest what the $%&* do you want?

 

[SGtheArtist]

Well the idea I had for such a load balancing app would be something that can tell when the resources for each core are not being used and redirect single thread programs to those resources. I wouldnt worry so much about the priority setting. This would simple remove the task of setting the affinity from the user.

Most single thread programs place their demands on Core0 while Core1 is simple unused. At least that's how I understand the information I've read. Am I wrong?

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: SGtheArtist
Well the idea I had for such a load balancing app would be something that can tell when the resources for each core are not being used and redirect single thread programs to those resources. I wouldnt worry so much about the priority setting. This would simple remove the task of setting the affinity from the user.

Most single thread programs place their demands on Core0 while Core1 is simple unused. At least that's how I understand the information I've read. Am I wrong?

About the last part I am not sure, but study some of the charts form my own single thread uses and often times even a single threaded app only capabale of using 50% max will use 30-40% on one core and 10-20 onm the other....

I have also seen where I was previosuly running something...started another single threaded app which loads on core 1...when the first app stops it did not reverse over to the core 0 fully...it balanced some of the load out....I rarely see any single threaded app fully load one core unless affintiy is used...Otherwise it spreads some but not usually a 50/50 balance...

 

[piddlefoot]

Originally posted by: forumposter32
Can I be a devils advocate here and suggest otherwise?

What fascinates me about these threads is the fact that people who recommend dual cores also intentionally leave out the fact that many people have posted messages here about problems with dual cores and gaming. (Not trying to start a flame war, just stating the fact.)

The way I look at it, what are we going to see BTX form factor becoming more popular, high definition DVDs or Blue Ray discs (they're not even decided on a new standard), the Geforce 8 (shader model 4/Directx10), Windows Vista, DDR2 RAM on the socket M2 and possibly other advantages to that platform. Seriously, I want to wait at least 18 months to go multi-core. I might even wait until they come out with quad cores and everything will be "ready" (lots of multi-threaded software/games and lower prices for the new stuff like HD DVDs).

I got the stuff in my sig just this month. And I'm thrilled about the UT2004 performance.

AMD 4400+ tested on all the below games and recorded at 40 fps no glitches no crashes, l have 2 gigs of ram and an 7800gtx vid,

bf2, bf2 with 128 bots
bfv
doom 3
half life 2
race driver v8
colin mcray rally driver
decent freespace
star wars battlefront not recorded yet but tested
battlezone
act of war
age of empires kings
1942 battlefield
orb
homeworld
medal of honour allied assault
driver
vice city gta
rise of nations
far cry
real war.....

all 32 bit games ,all run fine on mine, l think MOST driver issues etc have been sorted because lve had no dramas, and some of them games are v old, free space, still run fine.

 

[kleinwl]

Their is a very simple reason NOT to go dual core: $$
A 3000+ venice at newegg $149 (ewiz $120 OEM)
A 3800+ X2 at newegg $375

My really bad 3000+ venice OCed to 2340Hz. A stock X2 is 2.2MHZ

If you want to wait for the M2 socket and fast DDR2 ram which will handle the bandwidth limitation of the X2 better, then a Venice 3000+ is a good short term option. I am looking at keeping it for a year and then upgrading to the X2 (M2 socket). I can always sell the cpu/mb/ram to someone else.

IMO the venice is fine for gaming... if you want to do full time encoding/DVD ripping/etc... then by all means go X2.... otherwise, you might want to wait like me.

 

[Markfw]

My really bad 3000+ venice OCed to 2340Hz. A stock X2 is 2.2MHZ

And the worst X2 3800+ OC (from 2.0) I have ever seen is 2.4. 99% are 2.5 or better. So that comment is not pertinent.

 

[ElTorrente]

Originally posted by: absinthe
I was going to go dual core, but decided to go HARDCORE instead.

[/being funny]

-abs

:laugh:

 

[blurredvision]

I was actually in the exact same predicament you are in just last week. At first, I had decided to spend the money on a 3200+ Venice core, and oc it a little bit. I then thought and though, and talked myself into just paying the extra $30 and getting a 3500+. I was then guaranteed a good clock, and I would oc from there (although not expecting much). Seeing as to how I didn't have the money yet, I started to read up on everything, and eventually started to see the MANY benefits of dual-core with me being a heavy gamer. "It is only $350," I told myself, and decided not too long after I was going dual-core. My upgrade path seem to be around 12-18 months, and with the inevitable dual-core software revolution up-and-coming, I didn't want to be out of the loop on it.

It's worth the extra $150 to me, that's all you have to ask yourself.

 

[SGtheArtist]

Duvie, thats interesting that it seems to load balance across the multiple cores. What OS are you running WinXP, Win2K, or WinXP-64?

 

[Aenslead]

NOOOO!! Don't go Dual Core!!! its the devil!!

Get an FX or Pentium XE!!!

*takes pills*

Seriously... anything you get will be good- if you find yourself with more than 50% of your current processor used for a long period, then get an X2... although if you are tight on budget, you could alays get a Pentium D820

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: SGtheArtist
Duvie, thats interesting that it seems to load balance across the multiple cores. What OS are you running WinXP, Win2K, or WinXP-64?

WinXP home edition with SP2......

I will try to put together some charts on this later tonight on different apps to show it....

 

[ElTorrente]

Standard response cut/paste from a different thread:

FX proponents don't seem to understand a crucial thing with the X2s.

For one, benchmarks take place under perfect conditions and clean installs- with no other application running. I don't remember seeing any benchmarks where the machine is playing REAL games. I'd like to see some BF2 benchmarks with VOIP activated, where the CPU has to encode/decode voice information while rendering frames. How about the act of staying connected and communicating with TCP/IP with a 64 person server- hundreds or thousands (?) of packets every second. Which benchmark compares the performance under those conditions?!?! How about Game Spy/All Seeing Eye, Joysticks/controllers, anti-virus, firewall, anti-spyware, AIM, and all the other common utilities that people have while playing online?

The thing is, with dual core- games are as fast as they CAN be. You will never have to wait for a CPU cycle to come around for your task to be performed- there is always CPU cycles available for any program/app to perform its function without taking away from other programs/apps. What this means is that it is SMOOTHER- especially online where much more is going on. Even under PERFECT conditions, the FX is ONLY a few frames a second faster- which is insignificant, and has nothing to do with REAL WORLD gaming!

Ever benchmark your own system?

When you do, do you move the mouse furiously around and press buttons, and send TCP packets, and encode/decode voices over internet? If not- WHY not? Well- because it slows you down, right? Well, not the X2. All that stuff happens while playing REAL GAMES.

LOL ever notice in SiSandra software how when you run a benchmark it says something like, "Benchmarking - DON'T move your mouse! OMFG be perfectly still while your system is being benchmarked!" .. Last time I played a game I was like, moving my mouse and doing stuff.

Have fun with your FXs and benchmarking, and proving to YOURSELVES that you made a good purchase. Those of us with X2s will enjoy the fringe benefits right now - EVEN WITHOUT any software optimizations for dual cores - and in the coming months will see even more improvements.