Dual Core vs. Quad Core

[dml38]

I am debating whether to build my new system now with core 2 duo or wait until the quad cores come out. Will it make such a big difference that it will be worth the wait? I do play a lot of games so that should be taken into account. Any input from the hardware gurus out there?

[AkXb70]

if all you do is games, stick with the dual core...games today typically only use one core anyhow.

[WyZe]

A high clocked single core CPU is all you need for gaming. Dual core STILL hasn't been used in gaming to any signifigant performance increases and I highly doubt it will even in the next year. Unless you want a nice 3DMark05 score your CPU doesn't matter. Spend every cent you have on your GPU's, I'd rather rock a Sempron 3000+ with 2 X19's than an E6700 with one X19.

[AkXb70]

single core? *pukes*

iunno about you, but i DO do other things besides game, and multitaking is so much more fun with something more powerful than a celeron....

[BIOHazard87]

Originally Posted by AkXb70

single core? *pukes*

iunno about you, but i DO do other things besides game, and multitaking is so much more fun with something more powerful than a celeron....

LMFAO, nice celeron point


Yes I did notice a bit of a difference when I switched to dual core faster boot times, better registration in my CS 1.6 server, etc

[WyZe]

Notice how I said "for gaming"?

I don't encode movies or fold... I play games, browse the internet, look at porn, download music, etc. I'm sure probably half the forum does exactly what I do and no more.

I gave my E6400 rig to my girlfriend and I use my 3700+ to game for myself, for what I do I see no difference between the two processors...

I'm not really sure what multi-tasking involves, I hear all sorts of people going on about it, but the only time I 'multi-task' on a computer is at work because I certainly don't want to do CAD and look through schematics at home.

[AkXb70]

iunno...my mobile celly @ 2.7GHz (256KB L2 northwood) seems sooooo sluggish compared to my E6600 system or even my HT enabled P4's. if i do a bunch of crap at one time, i have to sit and wait for it.

and compared to the P4's, theres not a whole lot of difference there

[WyZe]

When I say single core, I don't mean Intel. You shouldn't be gaming on anything using netburst in the first place. Let me rephrase my original post:

A high clocked single core Athlon 64 CPU is all you need for gaming. Dual core STILL hasn't been used in gaming to any signifigant performance increases and I highly doubt it will even in the next year. Unless you want a nice 3DMark05 score your CPU doesn't matter. Spend every cent you have on your GPU's, I'd rather rock a Sempron 3000+ with 2 X19's than an E6700 with one X19.

[BIOHazard87]

Originally Posted by AkXb70

iunno...my mobile celly @ 2.7GHz (256KB L2 northwood) seems sooooo sluggish compared to my E6600 system or even my HT enabled P4's. if i do a bunch of crap at one time, i have to sit and wait for it.

and compared to the P4's, theres not a whole lot of difference there

i agree again my 700mhz p3 was slow as hell, heck, even my grandpa's 2.4B is slow as hell


offtopic: *whispers* hey akXb70, feel like unblocking me on AIM now its been like 9 years now

[AkXb70]

you just totally contradicted yourself with the, 'you shouldnt be gaming on a netburst chip anyhow' if cpu's dont matter...

northwood 'C' chips were top dog in their day for just about everything. theres nothing wrong with them. those are old systems i havnt updated yet. i dont have the funds to update everything at the same time

EDIT: sorry BIO, forgot about that....fixed it

[WyZe]

Originally Posted by BIOHazard87

i agree again my 700mhz p3 was slow as hell, heck, even my grandpa's 2.4B is slow as hell

That is quite possibly the most moot point I have ever seen in my life, lol. You're not even in the right ballpark here. Try the next field over.

[Kantros]

Go with the core 2 duo man! Playing the waiting game for new hardware is worthless. As soon as quad cores come out, there'll be some new chip in development and you'll just wanna wait for that one. I would definitely get a dual core over a single core. I love having a whole extra core ready to pwn even if I've got a process putting the other at 100%. Plus, you get the advantages in the games that are dual core ready and any new games that have the ability. The low L2 cache on the semprons and celeys really does make a noticeable difference in some games too. (HL2 comes to mind). Just my opinion.

[WyZe]

Originally Posted by AkXb70

you just totally contradicted yourself with the, 'you shouldnt be gaming on a netburst chip anyhow' if cpu's dont matter...

northwood 'C' chips were top dog in their day for just about everything. theres nothing wrong with them. those are old systems i havnt updated yet. i dont have the funds to update everything at the same time

Uh, no, I havn't. CPU's do matter to an extent, but extra cores don't, try to follow. Anything over a 2.4GHz Athlon 64 won't see a huge difference in framerates while gaming.

Additional Comment:

Originally Posted by Kantros

Go with the core 2 duo man! Playing the waiting game for new hardware is worthless. As soon as quad cores come out, there'll be some new chip in development and you'll just wanna wait for that one. I would definitely get a dual core over a single core. I love having a whole extra core ready to pwn even if I've got a process putting the other at 100%. Plus, you get the advantages in the games that are dual core ready and any new games that have the ability. The low L2 cache on the semprons and celeys really does make a noticeable difference in some games too. (HL2 comes to mind). Just my opinion.

Yeah, you won't get 150FPS while maxed out with a Sempron compaired to an A64, you will only get 140FPS, that sucks really, doesn't it... come on it's HL2, you know what it takes to run that game totally topped out, right?

[AkXb70]

Originally Posted by WyZe

Uh, no, I havn't. CPU's do matter to an extent, but extra cores don't, try to follow. Anything over a 2.4GHz Athlon 64 won't see a huge difference in framerates while gaming.

last i checked, a 3000+ sempron was not a 2.4GHz A64...

there are games that really hammer cpu's though, even today. RTS's are usually more cpu dependent

[BIOHazard87]

Originally Posted by WyZe

That is quite possibly the most moot point I have ever seen in my life, lol. You're not even in the right ballpark here. Try the next field over.

k how bout a Turion ML-40 or Intel 2.4C @ 3.3 is slow compared to a 920 @ 3.25

Additional Comment:

Originally Posted by AkXb70

last i checked, a 3000+ sempron was not a 2.4GHz A64...

ROFL.... yea i know

[WyZe]

Originally Posted by AkXb70

last i checked, a 3000+ sempron was not a 2.4GHz A64...

Hey, isn't this forum about overclocking? Who the hell is going to run a Sempron at stock speeds. Once again, try to follow me here...

[BIOHazard87]

Originally Posted by WyZe

Hey, isn't this forum about overclocking? Who the hell is going to run a Sempron at stock speeds. Once again, try to follow me here...

A64's have more cache

[WyZe]

Originally Posted by BIOHazard87

A64's have more cache

Have you ever owned a Sempron 64 then upgraded to A64? If you have you will realise that cache makes almost no visible difference, in fact, in most games it's a frame or two at most with the exceptions being Source games (where the game is so scalable it doesnt matter anyway). Other than the lack of cache, they are the exact same architecture. Heck, go look at some reviews and see the difference seeing as you probably havn't owned either one.

[AkXb70]

how about we see what all he does and we'll go from there, ok?

i really dont see the point of single core at all though anymore with dual core being so cheap (comparatively)

[BIOHazard87]

yes I know they're still not the same

EDIT: yes akx, im sure the thread owner will be VERY happy to see his topic was magicly transformed into some crazy *** flame war