Dual or single core? 11 replies

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

-King-

People say I post too much

50 XP

11th June 2005

0 Uploads

2,370 Posts

0 Threads

#1 12 years ago

I'm planning on getting myself a new processor for christmas as my AMD 3000 really isn't cutting it anymore. I've got to theese two processors in mind AMD X2 Dual Core Athlon 64 3800 512 Socket 939 Pin http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/specpage.html?AMD-X238 AMD Athlon 64 4000 San Deigo Core 1MB 90nm Socket 939 Pin http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/specpage.html?AMD-64940S But can't decide between the two, I am aware that Dual core processors are good at running multiple applications, but if I was only running a game, nothing else, which would run better? Baiscly which is better for gaming. Replies much appreciated.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#2 12 years ago

ATM the 4000+, in the future the X2.

Games at the moment only use one core but in a few years they will use both. So its up to you.

I would say get the 4000+ and then when games require 2 Cores get something that is top of the range then. As when games do require 2 cores the 3800+ X2 most probably will be like your 3000+ is now




Rookie VIP Member

128,030 XP

3rd May 2005

0 Uploads

11,953 Posts

0 Threads

#3 12 years ago

Dual-Core won't come into widespread use for a good while yet, as there are very few programs that support it. For now, go with a decent single-core processor. You can always upgrade down the line anyway...




Agentlaidlaw

Pie

50 XP

21st February 2005

0 Uploads

3,801 Posts

0 Threads

#4 12 years ago

I would go dual core. Why? Well games may not be using both cores but you will get kick ass system performance. Reason why. 1 core for the game while the other core takes care of everything running in the background. Meaning 1 core will be running your game and the other one will be taking care of the OS and any other programs your running.

But I wouldn't get the 3800+ X2 because each of its cores run at a 3200+ speed. I would go for a 4400+ since it uses 2x 3700+ cores.




Rookie VIP Member

128,030 XP

3rd May 2005

0 Uploads

11,953 Posts

0 Threads

#5 12 years ago

AgentlaidlawI would go dual core. Why? Well games may not be using both cores but you will get kick ass system performance. Reason why. 1 core for the game while the other core takes care of everything running in the background. Meaning 1 core will be running your game and the other one will be taking care of the OS and any other programs your running.

But I wouldn't get the 3800+ X2 because each of its cores run at a 3200+ speed. I would go for a 4400+ since it uses 2x 3700+ cores.

Not technically true. Until Windows/Linux is given the ability to make use of the second core, you're stuck with what is essentially a single-core 3200+, meaning you won't see any discernable difference in performance. Windows Vista should bring with it full support for Dual-Core CPUs, and I imagine that a Linux developer will implement it somewhere down the line.




Agentlaidlaw

Pie

50 XP

21st February 2005

0 Uploads

3,801 Posts

0 Threads

#6 12 years ago

Linux already support dual core. They been supporting it since well since it was made. Almost everything Linux has will use them, GUI, Source, games, mostly everything.

Windows will use both cores. The OS its self is able to use them both. Then things like Anti virus and every thing else will speed up big time. So while he is gamming and he has team speak on or something else like that instead of 1 core trying to do both 1 core will be for the game and 1 core for team speak. 1 core will take the heaviest program when the other wont.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#7 12 years ago
Rookie_42Not technically true. Until Windows/Linux is given the ability to make use of the second core, you're stuck with what is essentially a single-core 3200+, meaning you won't see any discernable difference in performance. Windows Vista should bring with it full support for Dual-Core CPUs, and I imagine that a Linux developer will implement it somewhere down the line.

Based on what Rookie said, if you do go for the 4400+ X2, then you will have a minimum of a 3700+ processor, so its really up to you.




Rookie VIP Member

128,030 XP

3rd May 2005

0 Uploads

11,953 Posts

0 Threads

#8 12 years ago

AgentlaidlawLinux already support dual core. They been supporting it since well since it was made. Almost everything Linux has will use them, GUI, Source, games, mostly everything.

Windows will use both cores. The OS its self is able to use them both. Then things like Anti virus and every thing else will speed up big time. So while he is gamming and he has team speak on or something else like that instead of 1 core trying to do both 1 core will be for the game and 1 core for team speak. 1 core will take the heaviest program when the other wont.

Not by default. Out of the box Windows does not support dual-core, you'll have to go and get the hotfix from M$HQ. Linux only recently developed native support for it.




Agentlaidlaw

Pie

50 XP

21st February 2005

0 Uploads

3,801 Posts

0 Threads

#9 12 years ago

I am right for dual processors... But dual core I am wrong.. Got confussed... Bah. Well I still back the Dual core though. Later on it be worth it..

But one thing that gets me if a dual Cores architecture is different then why can apps that were already made for dual processors work with dual cores fine and when dual cores came out Windows was using both cores before they made a patch.. Wheres C38368...




rob.

I am the Walrus

50 XP

24th October 2004

0 Uploads

5,580 Posts

0 Threads

#10 12 years ago

Dual core, way more future proof...

A question....are the Dual core processors Socket 939?




  • 1
  • 2