sliperypete
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2006
- Messages
- 143
metallicafan said:Rumor has it there is some major AMD price cuts coming in about a month however.
If anyone is in the market for an AMD chip wait !!! check out why
Price Cuts
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
Single or Dual-Core?
- Thread starter Ander5
- Start date
If anyone is in the market for an AMD chip wait !!! check out why
Price Cuts
- Joined
- May 4, 2006
- Messages
- 13,339
I have noted and tested my self that single core (3200+ 2.0Ghz) is better then dual core (3800+ 2.0ghz) on battlefield2.
ThreeDee said:is it nvidia and Intel dual core specific? .. on my Opteron 170 @ 2.6ghz and 7900gtx .. I can't even remember the last time my comp locked up on anything , let alone a game (F.E.A.R. , BF2, CS:S, NFSMW , Far Cry ..are a few of the games I play)
just wondering is all
From most of the posts i've been reading its been an AMD and Nvidia problem, but i'm running Intel and having the same problem. So i've brought it down to it being Nvidia and dual core. I'm not really sure why your not having it, maybe the 7900gtx cards arent affected by it? I dont really know. Also i've noticed that Nvidia has been releasing new drivers almost every month, I really dont think they would do that unless they know there are some known issues.
Also, which Video drivers (version) do you use? and what are your settings? maybe its just that however you set it up is bypassing the problem and you hold the solution, which would help out a lot of people.
- divxman
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2001
- Messages
- 11,472
well I'm on 64bit windows , so that might be why I am not having problems ..dono
using the 9.31 64-bit betas right now ..but have gone thru about 4 diff drivers without issue except for not being able to alt-tab out of CS:S until I updated to the newest AMD64 drivers
using the 9.31 64-bit betas right now ..but have gone thru about 4 diff drivers without issue except for not being able to alt-tab out of CS:S until I updated to the newest AMD64 drivers
LOCO LAPTOP said:
I agree. Single core AMD CPUs should not be overlooked if you're an avid gamer. A single core 3800+ at stock will outperform a 4800+ X2 Toledo for most DirectX 9 games. See Tomshardware for their processor round up. Bang for buck a single core AMD is unbeatable. So much so I've just bought one for £97. Another option could be the forthcoming Intel Conroe - this may be a much better option for gamers rather than going with an X2 or even FX CPU, the benchmarks show staggering speed increases. Although undoubtedly this will come with a price premium.
TheRapture
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 31, 2000
- Messages
- 6,885
divxman said:
Horseshit. You have a problem, but dual core and NV it isn't. My dual core and 7900GT love each other. Only Far Cry and Quake1 had any stutter, and that was easily fixed with Intel's dual core patch for XP.
Find the real problem and stop spreading more fertilizer.
metallicafan said:
I really love it when someone says that more and more games will start to use this feature, because as a matter of fact, at the exception of maybe what ... Quake 4 and at a lesser degree Far Cry, there are NO games that use the dual core technology. So, in all fairness, stop advising gamers to get a dual core CPU, it makes asbolutely no sense.
besides, with a X2 3800+, the games will be pretty slow ... it's like playing on an Athlon64 3000+!!!
Each his own man, if you want to future proof your purchase, get the DC. Not everyone plays games 24/7, still watching and burning dvd's, ripping CDs and dvd authorizing. Try that with a single core while burning a dvd.wilka91 said:I really love it when someone says that more and more games will start to use this feature, because as a matter of fact, at the exception of maybe what ... Quake 4 and at a lesser degree Far Cry, there are NO games that use the dual core technology. So, in all fairness, stop advising gamers to get a dual core CPU, it makes asbolutely no sense.
besides, with a X2 3800+, the games will be pretty slow ... it's like playing on an Athlon64 3000+!!!
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2005
- Messages
- 2,205
wilka91 said:I really love it when someone says that more and more games will start to use this feature, because as a matter of fact, at the exception of maybe what ... Quake 4 and at a lesser degree Far Cry, there are NO games that use the dual core technology. So, in all fairness, stop advising gamers to get a dual core CPU, it makes asbolutely no sense.
besides, with a X2 3800+, the games will be pretty slow ... it's like playing on an Athlon64 3000+!!!
Wow. Someone seems bitter toward dual cores. Do a little research before posting garbage. Quake 4 isnt the only game that makes use of dual cores.
And I'm pretty sure that games will indeed slowly but surely be going down the multithreaded road.By the way, I have a Opteron 170 and my games are far from slow.
Flak_Monkey
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2004
- Messages
- 1,823
You gotta think of it like this: If you're a pure gamer, that means you turn your computer on and play games until you turn it off. Right now if you want the fastest out get the single core proc.
But, if you're like the rest of us and burn DVD's, encode movies, and run multiple apps at the same time, dual core makes all that smoother and much more enjoyable.
I am going to get a dual core processor, when the price drops of course. Right now I have a fast single core San Diego 3700+ @ 2.9Ghz so it handles all my games just fine. However, multi-threaded games are coming, and dual core is eventually going to take over. As of right now, if you're upgrading from an old system to a new A64 (or even an old A64 to a new one) you'd be best off snagging a dual core proc for your box.
But, if you're like the rest of us and burn DVD's, encode movies, and run multiple apps at the same time, dual core makes all that smoother and much more enjoyable.
I am going to get a dual core processor, when the price drops of course. Right now I have a fast single core San Diego 3700+ @ 2.9Ghz so it handles all my games just fine. However, multi-threaded games are coming, and dual core is eventually going to take over. As of right now, if you're upgrading from an old system to a new A64 (or even an old A64 to a new one) you'd be best off snagging a dual core proc for your box.
Undoubtedly dual core will become more important as time goes on. I'm not a big multitasker, all I use my PC for is burning DVDs, Internet browsing and gaming. I've got used to closing down applications before running games. I guess I'll have to carry on that tradition. It's a tricky choice to decide on which processor to go for - a slower games dual core or a fast single core CPU. Another factor that swayed my decision is price. Currently in the UK a X2 3800 is around £210 a Athlon 64 3800+ Venice is £95.
Slightly off topic, what sort of speed increase will I see in games going from an Intel 2.53ghz to a 3800+ Venice?
Slightly off topic, what sort of speed increase will I see in games going from an Intel 2.53ghz to a 3800+ Venice?
Dual core. I love my Opty 170, and it runs my games (and apps behind it) blazingly fast. I can run multiple apps while gaming, and minimize to them real quick. Oblivion is another game that takes advantage of dual cores. Oh, and my isnt that a popular game...
Single core is great for the games that have already been out for a while. Tomorrow's games are using the perks of dual core, my friends. Just wait and see how all of the games released by the end of 2006 are running on your singles in comparison to the dualies.
Single core is great for the games that have already been out for a while. Tomorrow's games are using the perks of dual core, my friends. Just wait and see how all of the games released by the end of 2006 are running on your singles in comparison to the dualies.
Khaydarin said:
If single cores are slow in comparison to dualies for games come the end of the year then it's upgrade time again
, hopefully come Q4 2006 dual cores will be far more keenly priced. At the moment all but the X2 3800+ are affordable for my budget. Intel's stunning dual core Conroe is going to lower the Athlon 64 X2 range prices by half - if not by more. Competition has its benefits!
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2001
- Messages
- 11,472
a list of things that once you try ...it's hard going back: (for me anyways)
1.Dial-up to DSL/Cable
2.Win98se to WinXP or Linux
3.512megs ram to 2gb ram
4.Standard monitor (4:3) to LCD Widescreen
5.2 channel to 5.1 surround
6.Single core to Dual Core
[F]old|[H]ard
1.Dial-up to DSL/Cable
2.Win98se to WinXP or Linux
3.512megs ram to 2gb ram
4.Standard monitor (4:3) to LCD Widescreen
5.2 channel to 5.1 surround
6.Single core to Dual Core
[F]old|[H]ard
ThreeDee said:a list of things that once you try ...it's hard going back: (for me anyways)
1.Dial-up to DSL/Cable
2.Win98se to WinXP or Linux
3.512megs ram to 2gb ram
4.Standard monitor (4:3) to LCD Widescreen
5.2 channel to 5.1 surround
6.Single core to Dual Core
[F]old|[H]ard
You forgot.
7. Regular TV to TV with DVR (like tivo)
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2001
- Messages
- 11,472
I forget a lot of things at 7 in the morning ...m1abram said:
GlimmerMan
Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2005
- Messages
- 982
wilka91 said:I really love it when someone says that more and more games will start to use this feature, because as a matter of fact, at the exception of maybe what ... Quake 4 and at a lesser degree Far Cry, there are NO games that use the dual core technology. So, in all fairness, stop advising gamers to get a dual core CPU, it makes asbolutely no sense.
besides, with a X2 3800+, the games will be pretty slow ... it's like playing on an Athlon64 3000+!!!
Even funnier are the people who say single-core is obsolete today. The reality is multi-threaded games is in its infancy. It will be several years before we see a game where performance on a dual-core signifigantly outperforms a single-core. But that time, their X2 and my FX-57 will both be obsolete. I think quad-cores will be out before we even see a game that really takes advantage of multi-threading.
So many different opinions...I am a gamer. From what is said stick with a single-core. However, I also use photoshop, dreamweaver and other web development tools (often simultaneously), I almost always have winamp or itunes running, when I am gaming ventrilo is in the background, and I usually have Firefox in the background as well. For multi-tasking dual-core is the way to go. It seems as though I am at a midpoint...can I get a one-and-a-half core processor? Anyway, does this description help determine whether or not I should go dual-core or stick with single?
Slartibartfast
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2004
- Messages
- 7,280
Dual socket FTW!
Seriously though, I heartily recommend dual core over single, even if you're primarily a gamer.
Ever have that experience where you're playing a very hardware-intensive game, and something pops up back in windows, and windows tries to shift the focus out of the game, and the whole system just locks?
Yeah, that doesn't happen with dual core. With my system playing games on their highest playable settings, I can still alt+tab out and it doesn't even hesitate.
Multithreading is the way of the future, and I don't doubt that more and more games will begin to take advantage of it.
Seriously though, I heartily recommend dual core over single, even if you're primarily a gamer.
Ever have that experience where you're playing a very hardware-intensive game, and something pops up back in windows, and windows tries to shift the focus out of the game, and the whole system just locks?
Yeah, that doesn't happen with dual core. With my system playing games on their highest playable settings, I can still alt+tab out and it doesn't even hesitate.
Multithreading is the way of the future, and I don't doubt that more and more games will begin to take advantage of it.
Slartibartfast said:
Nope...
Anyway, you are saying that if someone has too many memory resident applications loaded while playing a game they will have better performance on a dual core, DUH!
Slartibartfast said:
I am curious why do you need ot alt-tab out when playing games. I am usually too engrossed. I guess you must be a cheater
Slartibartfast said:
Games will almost certainly be more GPU limited than CPU limited. Developers write to the lowest common denominator. With GPU's they do this by providing scalable visual settings. WIth CPU's they just make sure it runs on average CPUs, as you usually don't see any scaling for CPUs (although it owuld be cool if they put in different levels of AI or whatever that used more/less CPU resources...)
Anyway, Multi-threading has shown to provide very limited performance improvement in games.
Slartibartfast said:
Whenever I get a popup bubble from the sys tray, my framerate goes from ~30 to ~2 rofl
J-Mag said:Nope...
I am curious why do you need ot alt-tab out when playing games. I am usually too engrossed. I guess you must be a cheater
If you play World of Warcraft, Thottbot and Allakhazam are your friends
Another reason could be switching channels in Ventrilo.I have accepted that there will be little-to-no performance change between single and dual-core processors, and since I do run multiple apps at the same time during games I think the dual-core option will be best. Any additional feedback?
Ander5 said:If you play World of Warcraft, Thottbot and Allakhazam are your friends
I had a feeling Wow would be brought up... I agree there are some promising things that can be done with dual core and WoW. Then again if a crack-head video encoder had a dual core he would spend less time encoding and more time hittin the pipe. (although then he would have to sell his dual core for more crack... )
Ander5 said:
Obviously if you a running multiple apps at the same time your choice is clear.
Depending on my bank at the time of the price-cut, I will either get the 4200+ or splurge and get the 4600+. Should I spend the extra $60 (according to http://www.digitimes.com/mobos/a20060622PR211.html) if I have the funds?
In respect to the new AM2 socket and DDR2 memory, this article proved interesting. The x2 5000+ performed on average only 10% better than the 4600+, and the 4600+ uses the full 800mHz memory bus, whereas the 5000+ only uses 742mHz due to the multiplier and memory divider. I may even be able to OC the 4600+ up to 2.8gHz if I was so inclined, and still utilize the full 800mHz memory bus.
Article: http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/328
Article: http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/328
Not to hijack the thread, but if one was looking at a 3800+ single core vs the x2 3800+, from a pure gaming perspective wouldn't the single core version perform better than the dual because of the clock speed (2.4 vs 2.0 ghz)? Im assuming the will both overclock roughly the same.
Slartibartfast
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2004
- Messages
- 7,280
scoob19 said:
Assuming you're not running anything significant in the background, the faster single-core will give you better game performance.
As far as my alt-tabbing: because I can
Slartibartfast
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2004
- Messages
- 7,280
J-Mag said:
It's based on how the game is written. I've been told that CoH and CoV get a decent benefit from running on multi-core systems.
Slartibartfast said:
Dependancy relies upon GPU subsystem, resolution, and settings used. I can bet that both games are GPU limited at 1920x1440 4xAA and above no matter what GPU subsystem you have. Yet, I am sure they are CPU limited when running dual 7900GTX's at 800x600..
I would like to see some bench links if you got any...
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2005
- Messages
- 2,205
Ander5 said:
Anyway, does this description help determine whether or not I should go dual-core or stick with single?
I think that most people who use photoshop will tell you dual core is the only way to go. Yeah even though dual cores wont help your gaming they WILL give you better system performance when doing multitasking. The key here is that dual core wont hurt your gaming now and down the road it will probably help your gaming performance. The only reason I can think of against buying a dual core is that it is slightly more expensive. And it sounds like you are aware of the rumored upcoming price cuts. Make good use of them and buy yourself a dual core.
OK, after much deliberation I am going to get Dual-Core. Right now I have the 4200+ picked out, but I noticed that the 4600+ is only $60 more expensive, so I will probably bump to that. I was reading reviews and people were saying the 4600+ was great, but not super-fast. Most mentioned the 5000+. I was looking at benchmarks and it seems as though the 4600+ isn't too far behind the 5000+, and I think some minor OCing would take care of the performance issue. Any thoughts on that? (the 5000+ is a $160 jump on the 4200+, or a $100 jump on the 4600+)
As of now, I have the case, psu, and DVD-RW assembled and I ordered the Video Card on 6/23. I am going to order the Raptor X next week (friday more than likely), and then bank money until the end of July and get the Asus board, memory and processor all in one go.
As of now, I have the case, psu, and DVD-RW assembled and I ordered the Video Card on 6/23. I am going to order the Raptor X next week (friday more than likely), and then bank money until the end of July and get the Asus board, memory and processor all in one go.
Arcygenical
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2005
- Messages
- 25,066
Phew. I was worried for a moment. The extra 8% speed bump is nowhere near worth the price IMO. Even an increase in FSB by 5pts will equal about that. If you don't mind doing a little overclocking, any of those chips will be able to hit 2.5ghz min. I've got a 3800X2 at 2.77, and it hardly breaks a sweat (well, it did under aircooling, a 63'C sweat).