Is dual core better than single core at the moment?

[Barley]

I'm trying to find out whether it's really worth upgrading from a single core to dual core AMD processor at the moment. Thought a poll might help, please give some input.

If you think dual core is worth upgrading to, say why. If you think it's best sticking with single core at the moment, again why?

[kristoficus]

If your thinking of upgrading, go for the dual core...Will futureproof your PC. If your not thinking of upgrading, but just want some advice. Right now i would say single core is good enough for 99% of people. Theres not that many 64-Bit or DC enabled applications available right now, but be sure that they will arrive thick and fast once Vista is released (final version).

This time next year im sure most new products will be optimised for dual core processors.

[Gregoroth]

If you've got the money or your building a new pc, then dual-core.

X2 3800 = 2x3200's
X2 4200 = 2x3500's
X2 4600 = 2x3800's

As you probably already know, most games need 3.0Ghz to run at recommended settings so an X2 3800, even being the lowset speed dual-core processor, you should be able to play most games fine. Then at the end of this year when I think we'll start to see multithreaded games appear which will utlilise both cores, you will be laughing. I'm pretty sure that Crysis is going to make use of both cores and on the Crysis Online forum, the anticipated specs show an X2 as recommended.

Currently, I think only Oblivion, Quake 4 and COD2 can make use of both cores but don't hold me to that; I read it on Wikipedia and I know that anyone can post false info, so I don't know about that to be honest.

As far as I know and games aside, tasks such as media encoding, virus scans, all your background tasks, music, video's etc DO currently make use of both cores, essentially giving you 6.4Ghz power if you choose an X2 3800, 7Ghz for the 4200 and 7.6Ghz for the 4600!

Also there's the issue about AMD getting rid of the Socket 939 stock to make way for all the AM2 chips? If you want a Socket 939 chip, then it might be best to get it sooner rather than later. You never know when stock is going to drop and prices may go up due to demand. I don't know economics but that's my thoughts on it.

Bottom line is, if you want a Socket 939 processor then get the best you can afford or save up to get the X2 4600, because if you get the X2 3800 and plan to upgrade again next year you might find it dificult to get the Socket 939 chips! If you're on a tight budget then I recommend you get the X2 3800.

[Firerat]

[quote:399dc0f11d=\"Gregoroth\"]
As far as I know and games aside, tasks such as media encoding, virus scans, all your background tasks, music, video's etc DO currently make use of both cores, essentially giving you 6.4Ghz power if you choose an X2 3800, 7Ghz for the 4200 and 7.6Ghz for the 4600!
[/quote:399dc0f11d]

I used to run a Dual PIII 550 ( OC ed to 800 :)

I ran ( and still run ) Linux which supported Dual CPU , however there wasn't much software which would support both CPUs , however it did mean that two separate applications ran more smoothly as they were not competing for CPU Cycles, Linux would manage which CPU teh appliation would use at any given time.
Since then I couldn't go back to a single CPU , I currently run a P4 2.4 Canterwood ( OC ed to 3.2 ) which has Hyperthreading which is like a 'pretend' Duel Core.

In Short , yeah Dual Core is kewl

I havn't decided on Intel or AMD yet

[Barley]

I'm considering shelling out a little extra for the X2 4200x instead. It's about £32 more, but seems worth it for the extra 200Mhz per core. Plus it's better value for money I believe, and means you can perhaps overclock further.

[Gregoroth]

[quote:b06f387c9e=\"Firerat\"][quote:b06f387c9e=\"Gregoroth\"]
As far as I know and games aside, tasks such as media encoding, virus scans, all your background tasks, music, video's etc DO currently make use of both cores, essentially giving you 6.4Ghz power if you choose an X2 3800, 7Ghz for the 4200 and 7.6Ghz for the 4600!
[/quote:b06f387c9e]

I used to run a Dual PIII 550 ( OC ed to 800 :)

I ran ( and still run ) Linux which supported Dual CPU , however there wasn't much software which would support both CPUs , however it did mean that two separate applications ran more smoothly as they were not competing for CPU Cycles, Linux would manage which CPU teh appliation would use at any given time.
Since then I couldn't go back to a single CPU , I currently run a P4 2.4 Canterwood ( OC ed to 3.2 ) which has Hyperthreading which is like a 'pretend' Duel Core.

In Short , yeah Dual Core is kewl

I havn't decided on Intel or AMD yet[/quote:b06f387c9e]

I'm going to stick with AMD:

1. I've never used AMD before
2. Quad-core cpu's in the near future (whether or not there will be Socket 939 versions I don't know, but I'm getting a motherboard that allows the use of an AM2 bridge card. Pretty intruiging. (sp?)

[pbest1]

I voted for the Dual core, purely based on future proofing your machine, unless you can afford to upgrade each year (which lets face it most people cant) you need that cpu to be useable for as long as possible, and it certainly looks like dual or even quad core is where its going to be :D

[Belso]

Depending on what your upgrading from.

[Barley]

AAGGHH!! I ordered an AMD X2 4200+ last night, £132 excluding postage, should be interesting.

Nothing I ever buy works first time, I'm famous for being incredibly unlucky, so we shall see!

It better work in MY asus board! Website says it will.

[kristoficus]

That's a beastly processor, so unless your other components are up to the same spec, expect a bottleneck in performance (could be small and not noticeable, but on the other hand...).

[Barley]

[quote:9be9a649dd=\"kristoficus\"]That's a beastly processor, so unless your other components are up to the same spec, expect a bottleneck in performance (could be small and not noticeable, but on the other hand...).[/quote:9be9a649dd]

BFG 7800GT 256MB PCi-E card - comes pre-overclocked
2GB G.Skill RAM
Asus A8N-SLI Premium

[Barley]

[quote:9165830e1d=\"ÈL ® ö B ì Ñ\"]Barley I have the same card as you, 7800GT OC (pre overclocked)

Have you overclocked it any more?

I oc'd mine some more to:

Core Clock: 476MHz

Memory Clock: 1110MHz (1.1GHz)

:twisted:[/quote:9165830e1d]

Yeah I cranked it up a bit, but I don't remember what to. I formatted the other day, and haven't overclocked since.

[gavpowell]

To return to this thread briefly - what wouldd be the benefits of using a dual core rather than say, a multi-processor setup a la opterons? Will games only be able to use the one processor, or can you have ultra-beefy specs through dual processos or whatever?

[Devils-Blood]

I wouldn't even bother with amd now intel has released core 2 duo family which beats the FX-62. Overclock the cheapest processor the E6300 £135 and it wipes the floor with the FX-62 the £220 E6600 beats the FX-62 and if its overclocked the FX-62 is left in its dust. From a standard speed of 2.4GHZ I seen it overclocked and running stable at 4GHZ.

Intel will be on top now for at least a couple of year and if amd will ever catch up will need to be seen.

Here is a article on the core 2 duo with benchmarks showing the cheapest core 2 duo overclocked.