Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

dual core vs. single core

Last response: in CPUs
Share

Dual core vs. Single core

Total: 36 votes (2 blank votes)

  • single
  • 20 %
  • dual
  • 80 %
January 28, 2006 11:35:22 AM

So, Are dual cores better than regular cpu's, Price vs. Preformance

More about : dual core single core

January 28, 2006 12:49:39 PM

Yeah basically it depends totally what you are into.
If you really need to do all those virus scans, gaming and video editing at the same time then Dual-Core is the way to go.
Dual-core won't really help in gaming, because only few of today's games are made to take advantage of the Dual-Core technology.

When we are talking about price vs. performance then I think single core processors give a better bang for your buck. Then again it all depends how you use your computer. You really should be more specific :wink:
January 28, 2006 12:55:27 PM

I would like to spend only $350 for a CPU, SO i think i'll go with a single core. I don't do than much multitasking anyway! :wink:
Related resources
a b à CPUs
January 28, 2006 2:43:03 PM

"I would like to spend only $350 for a CPU,"

Such a budget does not nescessarily exclude the dual core models, as the X3-3800+ is down to about $300 even now...
January 28, 2006 2:48:39 PM

I rather get a great expensive single core CPU than a cheap dual core CPU.
January 28, 2006 3:26:45 PM

Single cores are still great for multi-tasking and games. Of course a dual core would be better at it. I believe dual cores are kinda like HT and SSE3 back in the day not alot of things benifited from it but now everything does and duals will take the same path.
January 28, 2006 3:32:22 PM

Who wouldn't want a dual core? I own an Audi TT with dual turbos... do I need it? Certainly, or else I wouldn't have bought it... really! The 45 extra ponies were critical :-)

Heh... but the little dual core beasties are too pricy for me right now. A good single core, overclocked, is the best bang for a buck for most of us. I run folding@home in the background on all my computers (single core) and don't even notice the difference. The only time I notice delays is when the computer is accessing the disk and I don't believe that will change much with a dual core.

I suspect the argument that "I run 14 things at once so I need a dual core" is mostly rationalization (like my dual turbos). Most people honestly don't do that many things at once all that often.
January 28, 2006 4:02:12 PM

Very useful info, thanks guys :D 
January 28, 2006 5:23:33 PM

I went from a 2.4ghz Celery to an AMD X2 3800 and the difference is night and day. I can't even stand to work on the Celery anymore. Might just be becuase its a Celery but I like running folding/firewall/Anti-virus and having enough power to still play my games.
January 28, 2006 5:25:30 PM

Not so fast my pedigree chum! Follow me on this:

At high resolutions and high quality settings a game is GPU dependant right? You would hardly notice the difference between a X23800 of a A64 4000. But you already know this.

At low resolutions and quality, the CPU becomes the focus. Again, we know this.

But you can install a dual core patch for Quake4 that will practically double frame rates at low resolutions on dual core systems. naturally, the performance boost gets smaller as you scale up the resolution and quality.

So, lets say there comes a day when your graphics card cannot play top of the line games at high quality and resolutions (god forbid). You install the patch and BAM! What was barely playable is now playable on your system. I mean, its like if you could only play a game at 1024x768 with no AA and AF. You install the patch and now you can enable 4X AA or something. As the patch improves, so will your performance. The best thing: its free. Its like how a new driver improves the performance of a game, except now you can improve the performance of two things instead of one.

What does this mean? With dual core, instead of your chip getting relatively slower with time, it will scale quite well with time as dual core patches come out and more applications become dual core optimized. The sooner the tech community dispells these notions that single core is better for gaming and such, the sooner everyone will get a dual core CPU, thus further fueling the dual core paradigm. Can you imagine the next "must have" game not being dual core optimized? Its a win win situation. What do you think?
January 28, 2006 6:04:33 PM

Prozac, dont fight me on this brother. Quake4 and COD2 have dual core patches RIGHT NOW! I think extremetech.com did the review. It was all over the place. Where the hell have you been brother? This isnt opinion either. Its cold hard fact. Dual core optomizations are here. even Divx released its helium codec for dual cores. You are talking in the past dude. The future is now! get on board man!
January 28, 2006 6:06:13 PM

I'm pretty sure games are already being developed for dual cores. If I remember correctly The Eler Scrolls IV: Oblivion is one game comming out that will take advantage of multiple cores. In fact, any company out there that makes games for the X-Box 360 is already creating games that make use of 3 cores.

Fritz
January 28, 2006 6:27:12 PM

I cant paste the chart here, but I can give you the link:
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/quake_4_dual-core_p...

For example, Quake 4 at 1280x1024 with 4XAA enabled

No Patch: 77fps
With patch: 101fps

Nobody in their right mind can argue those numbers. And this is just the beginning. The patch can still be tweaked and performance increased. If this is single thread imagine what dual threads will be like? Dude, I know you have your opinion and although I dont agree, i respect it. But there is a guy up there who started this thread and asked a question cuz he wanted to know the facts, not opinions. Since we are smarter than the avg bear, we owe it the the less informed to give them the best info on the subject matter. The whole "single core is better for games" thing is cliche. Its not true anymore. But dont take my word for it:

Naturally, you’ll see the biggest difference at resolutions where you’re not bottlenecked by a graphics card. With our Radeon X1800 XT, the sweet spot seemed to be 1280x1024 on both platforms. Even 1600x1200 with 6xAA and 16xAF showed an appreciable difference, though. That’s pretty remarkable when you consider most processor debuts demonstrate very little improvement at 1600x1200

I think all well read posters here in the forums have a responsibility to present the facts. Or at least give unbiased opinions. And when an opinion is given, it should follow with a "IMHO" or something. I almost bought an opteron cuz someonevery prominent in the forums said they were multiplier unlocked. He "confirmed" it. That was very irresponsible. I am just trying to make sure the best info gets out you know?
January 28, 2006 6:34:57 PM

Quote:
I cant paste the chart here, but I can give you the link:
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/quake_4_dual-core_p...

For example, Quake 4 at 1280x1024 with 4XAA enabled

No Patch: 77fps
With patch: 101fps

Nobody in their right mind can argue those numbers. And this is just the beginning. The patch can still be tweaked and performance increased. If this is single thread imagine what dual threads will be like? Dude, I know you have your opinion and although I dont agree, i respect it. But there is a guy up there who started this thread and asked a question cuz he wanted to know the facts, not opinions. Since we are smarter than the avg bear, we owe it the the less informed to give them the best info on the subject matter. The whole "single core is better for games" thing is cliche. Its not true anymore. But dont take my word for it:

Naturally, you’ll see the biggest difference at resolutions where you’re not bottlenecked by a graphics card. With our Radeon X1800 XT, the sweet spot seemed to be 1280x1024 on both platforms. Even 1600x1200 with 6xAA and 16xAF showed an appreciable difference, though. That’s pretty remarkable when you consider most processor debuts demonstrate very little improvement at 1600x1200

I think all well read posters here in the forums have a responsibility to present the facts. Or at least give unbiased opinions. And when an opinion is given, it should follow with a "IMHO" or something. I almost bought an opteron cuz someonevery prominent in the forums said they were multiplier unlocked. He "confirmed" it. That was very irresponsible. I am just trying to make sure the best info gets out you know?


What difference?

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/quake_4_dual-core_p...
January 28, 2006 6:47:05 PM

We can argue the merits of 3 fps all night my friend. But since you are the guru, I'm sure you know that on Doom3 at 1280x1024/high quality, 3fps is also the difference between a FX-55 and an A64 3200? So ayou saying we should all go out and buy the 3200 (come to think of it, maybe we should) Look, lets not nitpick this one ok? Since you are the guru I know you can comprehend my point, Lets focus on the numbers I posted ok? Any comment on those my european friend?
January 28, 2006 8:43:47 PM

This is my thing, i don't come into enough money to be upgrading my machine every 6 months, so when i am looking at the future, i see the multicore proccessors. Now i don't know about this guy, but i would put my money into a 165 or a 170 opteron just for the sake of an investment into the long term. but again like prozac says this is an opion. We do know that computing is begining to focus on multithreading, why not be prepared for it? My money is going on dual core becuase when we start talking about stats of a multi threaded game between a single core and a dual core, we know what will happen.....
January 29, 2006 4:13:53 AM

Quote:
Ok, that's for dual core, single core 3800+ performs same like X2 3800+ with the patch, not all games have patches. You can't say dual core is for gaming cuz not all games have patches.


Right, not all current games have patches.

Quote:
Like I said, if you have the money for a very good dual core, then go for it, I would, but the point I have is you can't tell where technology is going.

Quote:
You can't say you want to be prepared for the future, because no one knows where we're heading with technology.


I know where technology is heading, as can anyone who looks at the latest trends / offerings from CPU manufacturers: multi-core processors. Software companies can see this too, and I have to figure that maybe, just maybe, they will code programs to make use of multiple cores. This may be a short sighted view, because I agree we cannot see too far in the future, but for the time being that IS where technology is headed.

So while every game on the shelves today may not have patches to make use of multiple cores, a heck of a lot of them released from here on out will make use of multiple cores in their release versions.

It is very, very hard to argue the price point of the singe core offerings. A 4000+ would be one sweet processor for a mere $325. This is the one place the single core processors have a major advantage in. It is the price / performance ratio of a dual core that will be really sweet once even a few games designed for multiple cores hit the shelves.

I've been mulling over a new system for a while now & I cannot see why I would not go with a dual core processor. Software technology will be optomized for them from now on, and even if it only lasts me 3 years I definately think the performance gain will be well worth it. For some reason I think I can make a new comp. last for a little longer than that.

Current rig
PIII 800 (100 MHz FSB)!!!
Geforce Ti4400
512 Mb Mushkin CAS2 SDRAM

As you can see this will come nowhere close to running the next title in my favorite series with the settings I will want: The Elder Scrolls.

Too bad it ran Morrowind and everything else just fine :cry: 

Oh and for anyone complaining about "unlimited budgets" for new hardware, go deliver pizzas as a second job for a few months and then tell me you don't have the money for that 7800 AND that new dual core processor. (kids living with their parents excluded of course :D  )

Fritz
January 29, 2006 10:09:39 AM

ok Prozac. Nuff said. I have read your posts around the forums and I know that you know your shit. You are not a moron or anything like that. While I cannot argue your point about a 3200 and a 7800GT for $460 against a X2 3800 with a 6600GT for the same cash, I will say this: you saw the benchmarks for yourself. That patch can basically breathe new life into any setup which is the crux of my argument. Lets just drop this one and find some other topic to either agree on or at least agree to disagree on. Cheers!
June 3, 2009 11:50:56 PM

I have an AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800 with a 1GB video card. I not a computer wizard like some of you but I think it works great but didn't know that there was a patch for the dual core. Does the R6 Ravenshield game have a patch? I play it the most.
a b à CPUs
June 4, 2009 12:31:31 AM

Why did you revive a 3 year old thread? lawls
June 5, 2009 3:08:25 AM

:lol:  Gpops please start a new thread, if you have a quesiton.
June 7, 2009 1:26:56 AM

Nothing wrong with an 3year old game if it is a lot of fun. Many still play it. Ghost Recon 3 is great too. What is lawls?
!