Dual Core longlevity?

[BrainDanceR]

Hi Peeps.

Which do you think will be better for gaming in 2 years time, a 3800+ (single core), or
the equivalent dual core (I think AMD have a dual core 3800+ coming out soon?)

Reason I am asking is, while single core CPUs are much better bang for buck currently(for games), but, when apps start to take advantage of dual core technology, will the single core CPUs suffer greatly?

Can anyone predict when dual core will become the norm?

 

[(cf)Eclipse]

depends on the market your looking at.. for mainstream people with dells and hp's, dual core probably won't really get good market penetration for a while.. a year at the very least

 

[mjz_5]

i'll get the dual core... developers are going to be forced to create multi threaded games because the xbox and ps3 both have multicore processors (slow @ single threaded appz)

 

[Scali]

I don't think games will ever get a lot of gain out of multicore, and certainly not on short notice. I think if you get a single-core now, in 2 years it's still early enough to upgrade to dualcore.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

I'm looking at it this way: Today I'm getting my very first Athlon64 3000+ Winchester @2500Mhz. When I can get a dual-core chip for ~$100-150, I'll upgrade. Until then I'll be happy with the single core.

Jason

 

[gerbiaNem]

I don't think games will ever get a lot of gain out of multicore, and certainly not on short notice. I think if you get a single-core now, in 2 years it's still early enough to upgrade to dualcore.

Games will always benefit with background applications. And games won't benefit much until there is a good multicore compiler, but not yet... So probably about 30% increase from second core I'm guessing.

 

[notalent420]

But regardless of the benchmarks. It's quite amazing to notice the difference when opening a bunch of windows at once.

 

[Araanor]

I don't think games will ever get a lot of gain out of multicore, and certainly not on short notice. I think if you get a single-core now, in 2 years it's still early enough to upgrade to dualcore.

Ever? Graphics, physics, AI - what is not parallelizable to some extent? Multi-cores may not bring a lot for games currently, but you won't be able to do without them in the future.

 

[Scali]

Ever? Graphics, physics, AI - what is not parallelizable to some extent?

The question is what that extent will be. With my personal experience in developing graphics and animation, I'd say 'little'. Most of the stuff that is parallelizable in graphics, is already paralellized inside the acceleration chips. What's left for the CPU is rather hard to split up.
Physics may gain a bit from two cores, but only if physics accelerators don't beat them to the punch.
With AI I think the amount of processing is too little to have much of an impact at all, even if it is fully parallelized.

 

[mikelz85]

do you honestly have that big of an issue dropping cash on a new cpu down the road? I mean, a 3200+ is fine now, and will be for some time (even longer oc'd). Optimizations for smp gaming is far off, and you'd be best of spending a little money now on a single core setup, and then buying an "older" X2 down the road. This is sure to save you a ton of cash. If you have the money, it is always best to upgrade only right when needed/wanted, as the purchasing options are far better than "future proofing". Seeing as how a single core--->dual core upgrade is a simple drop in operation, buying a cheaper single core, then moving to dual core later (when you need it, and when prices have dropped) is the best bet.

Another note: For programmers to be willing to look at games in that way would require the market standard to be "dual core". They always look at the bottom of the median PC as a coding baseline. Hence why you don't NEED a 7800gtx to play ANY game with decent graphics. They'd be completing taking themselves out of a huge market by coding in such a way. So when joe blow down the street has a DC, and only because nothing else was even offered, then I'd start to think about it. To be honest the enthusiest sector around here is often very far ahead of the curve, even our "average" and "obsolete" systems are far above par compared to the "average" PC.

 

[aeonrevolution]

To be honest the enthusiest sector around here is often very far ahead of the curve, even our "average" and "obsolete" systems are far above par compared to the "average" PC.

Thats the truth for sure!

 

[Dan_D]

depends on the market your looking at.. for mainstream people with dells and hp's, dual core probably won't really get good market penetration for a while.. a year at the very least

They are hitting the market harder than you think. We are selling many dual core Pentium D systems at the Comp USA I work at part time. Many of them. Still single cores out number them but I am surprised by how many models have them already.

My advice is to go with the dual core. I hated the way single core non-HT processors multi-task. Besides if you buy a higher end dual core, you won't really be losing much if anything at all vs. a single core processor. You'll get closer to your two year mark.

But regardless of the benchmarks. It's quite amazing to notice the difference when opening a bunch of windows at once.

Exactly. SMP systems seem to run smoother and last longer. My Dual Pentium Pro 200 was usefull FAR longer than any single processor rig I've used.

be honest the enthusiest sector around here is often very far ahead of the curve, even our "average" and "obsolete" systems are far above par compared to the "average" PC.

You have a point. Even if the normal PC's sold in retail have faster CPU's than we do, the video hardware and low end motherboard chipsets often castrate those machines to what we'd consider unusable in games reguardless of the CPU they have in them.

 

[GuyOnTheCouch]

plus if u get a dual core cpu, u can takle UT2k7 when it comes out , they say the engine will multithread.

 

[xonik]

They are hitting the market harder than you think. We are selling many dual core Pentium D systems at the Comp USA I work at part time. Many of them. Still single cores out number them but I am surprised by how many models have them already.

Yes, but at the same time, notebooks are replacing the desktop PCs that many households have owned over the years. This trend will slow the adoption of dual core processors until multi-core mobile chips (Yonah, et al) enter the scene.

 

[obiwansotti]

This all depends on if you plan to O/C.

Dual cores seem to be getting the same speeds out of O/C's as single cores for the most part.

So if you are going to O/C, mine as well do dual cores.

If you are running at stock speed, then the single core will probably be better over the next two years.

 

[Dan_D]

Yes, but at the same time, notebooks are replacing the desktop PCs that many households have owned over the years. This trend will slow the adoption of dual core processors until multi-core mobile chips (Yonah, et al) enter the scene.

Those people will soon learn better. The notebook is still too expensive for what you get, and the lack of upgradability and high cost of maintenence and repairs often turn notebook users into desktop users if they don't "require" portability. I have that conversation with customers at least once a week.

 

[sakurakana1003]

It's up to you really, personally I always buy whatever is the top of the line every two years and it's always been able to last a good two years until I upgrade again.

 

[xonik]

Those people will soon learn better. The notebook is still too expensive for what you get, and the lack of upgradability and high cost of maintenence and repairs often turn notebook users into desktop users if they don't "require" portability. I have that conversation with customers at least once a week.

Learn better?

I disagree, but I'll leave my reasons for another thread...

Anyways, I don't see the desktop PC gaining any more market share in the near future.

 

[mikelz85]

Besides if you buy a higher end dual core, you won't really be losing much if anything at all vs. a single core processor. You'll get closer to your two year mark.

Well, in this case, you are losing something. Your hard earned cash!

In any case but one where the budget for the PC is enough for the top of the line GPU and the top of the line cpu (any x2), a gamer will be better off putting only enough into the CPU as is needed, and the rest into the GPU.

Further, given the ease of upgrade from single core to dual core on the AMD platform, there is ZERO reason for a gamer to go dual core now unless they have tons of cash to burn, and don't want to ever crack the case open, or want IE, music, and IM to run "oh so smoothly" at the same time(as if they don't already!!!!). The best bet is to go decent single core now, and dual core later. However, you still might be faced with a situation that even if a 939 X2 is a ton less money 6-12 months from now, the performance increase in games offered by spending that cash on the CPU upgrade might be far lower than if the GPU was to be upgraded instead. Product cycles are a little quicker on GPUs, and the whole dual core thing with games is far from visible/tangible.


And on the notebook deal, that's why, if I were to buy one (unless the competition was so cheap I could afford to have to replace shit), I would buy a dell. The service/quality (service with a decent plan, and they are worth it in this case) is first rate from what I've seen with all of my friends' laptops. Something breaks, it gets fixed the next day free of charge. Don't like the dead pixels? Send it back for a new screen free of charge. Dell offers the best quality laptops I've ever seen.

 

[mjz_5]

Well, in this case, you are losing something. Your hard earned cash!

In any case but one where the budget for the PC is enough for the top of the line GPU and the top of the line cpu (any x2), a gamer will be better off putting only enough into the CPU as is needed, and the rest into the GPU.

Further, given the ease of upgrade from single core to dual core on the AMD platform, there is ZERO reason for a gamer to go dual core now unless they have tons of cash to burn, and don't want to ever crack the case open, or want IE, music, and IM to run "oh so smoothly" at the same time(as if they don't already!!!!). The best bet is to go decent single core now, and dual core later. However, you still might be faced with a situation that even if a 939 X2 is a ton less money 6-12 months from now, the performance increase in games offered by spending that cash on the CPU upgrade might be far lower than if the GPU was to be upgraded instead. Product cycles are a little quicker on GPUs, and the whole dual core thing with games is far from visible/tangible.


And on the notebook deal, that's why, if I were to buy one (unless the competition was so cheap I could afford to have to replace shit), I would buy a dell. The service/quality (service with a decent plan, and they are worth it in this case) is first rate from what I've seen with all of my friends' laptops. Something breaks, it gets fixed the next day free of charge. Don't like the dead pixels? Send it back for a new screen free of charge. Dell offers the best quality laptops I've ever seen.

i don't know what type of dell laptops you're using, but at work, a lot of our dell laptops are giving us problems (purchased 100s).. 2 years ago when we purchased toshibas, we never had these many problems.