Is dual core worth it?

I am in a dilemma at the moment. I am choosing a new CPU and hav narrowed it down to 3 CPU's: the X2 4200, the X2 3800 and the single core 3800 (venice core).

I am not an all out gamer but do like to do so fairly often. I spend a lot of time multitasking with several programs open at once. Would that make an dual core CPU benficial and if so is the X2 4200 worth the extra cash?

I have checked out the CPU chart and the single core 3800 seems way on top at the moment. I know a lot of people say that this will change when multithreaded programs start arriving, but how long will this be and even then will the athlon 3800 still be on top?

What should I do???

Having several programs open (several browser windows, a few word windows, a spreadsheet or 2, Access working on a project mock up, vs.net designing the next killer app, etc.), doensn't really make a dual core necessary. Now if you're working with Photoshop applying complex filters & rendering a video in the background while you run a busy FTP server and have bittorrent running... THEN you need a dual core. (well, in that extreem case Can I suggest a quad-CPU system? I think it would be quite useful... )

Mike.

For everyday tasks like internet browsing, email or word a PIII or an Athlon XP will be more than fast enough.

Multithreaded applications are already common for media encoding. Those types of programs were already multithreaded to take advantage of hypertreading so it didn't take much to make them dual core optimized. Internet browsers and Office won't really benefit from being multithreaded anyways since they don't stress a single core processor.

The other benefit of dual cores is for multitasking. This will allow you to play a game on one core while running a virus scan on the other or encoding video on one core while watching a DVD on the other. The benefits of multitasking can be realized immediately without multithreaded applications. However, real multitasking isn't having multiple Office programs open at once. It is having multiple programs that constantly require processor time running at once.

Most games can only benefit from one core right now although the latest games seem to be more dual core aware. I believe Quake 4, Serious Sam 2, and Call of Duty 2 all have dual cores performing faster than their single-core counterparts. As well, the latest graphics card drivers from before ATI and nVidia are now dual-core optimized with the latest ATI drivers also being HTT optimized.

Personnally, if you can afford it just go with the X2 3800+. You could easily overclock it by 200MHz to match the X2 4200+'s speed. Besides, your choice of graphics card is far more important in determining your gaming experience.

I agree with Itcommander

I would get the X2 3800, just for future concerns. In a not to far future most if not all games to apps..etc will be mulitthreaded at some point. Plus the way Intel and AMD are talking..(planing!) Multi-core CPUs..ie (4 cores on a single die in a 65nm is already being engineered at Intel I would guess AMD is doing the same. Software companies will go to the multi-threaded programs to improve performance of their products. Its just now in the beging but a year or 2 down the road it will be the norm!

It depends on what you plan to do with your computer. Having a few Office programs and browser windows open is not multitasking in a sense that would benefit dual cores. However, if you are encoding a movie while listening to music and working in Office, then in this true multitasking situation you will see a benefit with dual core processors.

I second the opty

If you are indecisive then you should just follow endyen's advice and get the A64 3700+. It's 200MHz slower than the A64 3800+ but has double the L2 cache. You can easily overclock to make up the difference if its important to you.

From what I can gather, you don't seem to be doing much media creation tasks so you won't likely see any benefit from going dual core for the forseeable future. As well, even if in a few years time programs are more dual core optimized, the sheer clock speed advantage of the A64 3700+ should keep it competitive.

no, paying more is pointless, the 4000 and the 3700 will both likely top out at the same speed. even if youre not overclocking, 200mhz is just not worth paying for.

would the purchase of a dual-core processor justify the following usage of having all these programs running at once:

msn messenger
yahoo messenger
up to 3 chat sites running (using firefox)
a couple of other firefox windows open (for browsing)
having an average game running in the background (for playing when not chatting)
anti-spyware program running

Is this typical usage justification for getting a dual core, or a single core athlon 4000, or just more ram?

In the case which david_uk suggests what is going to be better: an overclocked 3700 or an overclocked X2 3800? Even though their is a big price difference would this make the dual core worth it?

interesting, I've been a hard-core athlon dual-core supporter all this time, but now i'm beginning to see wisdom in just purchasing system with a single core.

however since they are both socket 939 i suppose it would be possible to switch without too many problems.

also bearing in mind i'm looking for a replacement system for my old p3-800 system with just 256mb of ram, i suppose any of the systems under discussion would seem as fast as lightning and infinitely more capable by comparison.

I would go for the 3800 dual core. There are lots of times I wish I had a second core. Although.....the more I think about that Opteron.....the more I like that idea.

With the way Amd uses cache, the extra 512 is more of a heatsink than anything else. A 3800 may top out @ ~ 2.7, while the San Diego is more likely to make it to 2.8ghz.

An easy way to deal with the lag, is to learn how to right click progs in task manager. If you set priorities, the single core will work better.