Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Fastest Single Core CPU?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 27, 2009 2:30:39 AM

Hey people, need to know, what is the fastest single core CPU. My mobo for my athlon 3700 died and got an I7. The problem I have now is that I was able to make any old program and game compatible with my 3700 using various programs like "microsoft program compatibility toolkit". We're talking about making games like every need for speed from the first one up work, any carmageddon, mech warriors, duke nukem, etc. But the problem now is that the I7 uses 4 cores and 4 logical cores.

No matter what I try, I can no longer make these old games function, no matter what compatibility program I use. Including reducing the number of cores used in bios "I can only reduce it to one core and one logical core, still creating that problem. And using one core is very ineffective, even for some older games. So now, i'm thinking about building a single core CPU.

From what I know, the AMD 3800 was the last single core CPU built along with the fx-57. Can anyone recommend a better sungle core CPU or are these two pretty much it?

Thanks in advance.
January 27, 2009 2:35:15 AM

im still not understanding why you want a single core cpu but the prescott was the fastest one. some have gotten clock speeds of up to 8.2ghz.
January 27, 2009 2:38:29 AM

Single core CPU, to be able to play old games at maximum quality. The I7's multiple cores will not permit this to happen.
Related resources
January 27, 2009 2:39:18 AM

interesting i didnt think that would cause a problem, but yeah the pentium 4 @ 3.0ghz is the fastest.
January 27, 2009 2:41:24 AM

And, as much as the prescotts had a higher clock, didn't the AMD 64 line prove to be faster? And the precott does have a 3.4 ghz processor, do they not?
January 27, 2009 2:42:36 AM

To be honest, im only 20 and that was a bit before my time, but from what ive seen....you should be able to get it clocked fast enough to make it better. reguardless both of them should be able to do the job.
January 27, 2009 2:53:32 AM

Yeah, not much older myself, anyone else with thoughts on this?
a b à CPUs
January 27, 2009 2:59:23 AM

i have an AMD 400 AROUND , NOT USING IT AND IT IS MUCH FASTER THAN MY 3.06 INTEL . YOU WANT IT I CAN SEND IT YOUR WAY . It has 1mb L2 cache It was the last single core amd
January 27, 2009 3:00:10 AM

Hate to say it but it sounds like you're screwed. I heard rumors that i7 doesn't run older games especially quake 3 engine games, guess the rumors were true for others as well. You'd think the quad would just use one core but guess not.

The 939 dual cores will run any old game, just install the dual core optimizer and your fine so don't just limit yourself to single core. If the cpu is fine you could try looking for an old mobo on ebay for an old gaming rig.

I'm not sure how to do it but I wonder if you could go into the said games' files and try specifing a specific core. Not sure if it would work but you could give it a try and wait for others much more tech savy. Good luck.
January 27, 2009 3:14:54 AM

to Jerry...sure if you no longer want it, that's be great! Would work for me!

To SDF. Even people with dual-cores had issues with SOME older games. Often, they have to shut down one core to make a game work. Example, need for speed 1 and 2se, porsche unleashed as well as carmageddon, god knows which others. This is an ok fix, but I dont believe dual core with a downed core out there can run as fast a single core.

I've always avoided needing 2 pc's, but I think i'm out of luck now. regardless, I know that my single core AMD architecture with 1 gig pf pc 3200 could run all old games. I did need a boost once in a while though. Thats why im looking for an upgrade on the processor.
a b à CPUs
January 27, 2009 3:35:26 AM

SUPERCHARGE said:
to Jerry...sure if you no longer want it, that's be great! Would work for me!

To SDF. Even people with dual-cores had issues with SOME older games. Often, they have to shut down one core to make a game work. Example, need for speed 1 and 2se, porsche unleashed as well as carmageddon, god knows which others. This is an ok fix, but I dont believe dual core with a downed core out there can run as fast a single core.

I've always avoided needing 2 pc's, but I think i'm out of luck now. regardless, I know that my single core AMD architecture with 1 gig pf pc 3200 could run all old games. I did need a boost once in a while though. Thats why im looking for an upgrade on the processor.

no problem . pm me Ill arange to send it to yiou. it was never used . hope you enjoy it .
January 27, 2009 3:50:24 AM

Is there some inside joke I'm missing here? Do you seriously think it is the cpu causing your problems?
You didn't happen to upgrade your OS while getting a new cpu?
Anyway. Try dosbox or try using a virtual machine.
January 27, 2009 3:57:02 AM

Well, guess this discussion is pretty much done. This guy is generous enough to send me a processor which will work for me. I was quite surprised when he said he had a single core 4000+. Thought they stopped singles at 3800+. Oh well, now that i'll once again have a single core, all I need now is a mobo which will be easy and cheap to find. Have all the rest of the stuff I need.

This I7 is a double edged sword for sure. Great for new games, but you're also losing the ability to play your old ones.
January 27, 2009 4:02:22 AM

daskrabbe said:
Is there some inside joke I'm missing here? Do you seriously think it is the cpu causing your problems?
You didn't happen to upgrade your OS while getting a new cpu?
Anyway. Try dosbox or try using a virtual machine.



no dude... I had 5 os on my old rig, and 5 os now. On both, I had/have a couple pairs of windows xp's and windows vista. Dosbox only works for a small percentage of the games and does not have full graphic support. Trust me, i've worked hard to have each game compatible with my 3700+ using compatibility programs and playing in the bios. If you can play old games with full graphic support such as the early need for speeds, test drives, old shooters, etc using an I7, please let me know, because other people I've talked to in other forums are having the same issues.


The processor cores are most likely the issues because these games were built around single core and unlike other processors from today, the I7 makes no attempt to help older games run using any program, like "dual core optimizer". I don't deny though, that memory could also be an issue, but who knows. what i do know, is that it's not the software, but the hardware itself.

Perhaps there's different software out there that could help me out, but VERY unlikely, and if so, no one seems to know about it, yet alone use it.
January 27, 2009 4:24:30 AM

Oh, and if anyone has an older game they'd like running with a single core CPU, pm me, I may be able to help once I have yet again a single core myself. Dos-based games all run properly in DosBox, but windows based games, I.E windows 95/98/me/2000 based games can be run in XP with some fine-tuning.

This site may also be a great help to those seeking to run those old games on a newer PC: http://vogons.zetafleet.com
January 27, 2009 5:08:19 AM

shiftstealth said:
the prescott was the fastest one. some have gotten clock speeds of up to 8.2ghz.


On liquid nitrogen for 5-10 minutes. The Prescott was not the fastest by a long shot, it wasn't that great of an overclocker either because the power consumption and heat would quickly get out of control. Also, clock speeds are meaningless.

shiftstealth said:
interesting i didnt think that would cause a problem, but yeah the pentium 4 @ 3.0ghz is the fastest.


The fastest Pentium 4 was clocked at 3.8Ghz, it could hardly compete with a 3700+.

@ OP: 4000+ is probably one of the fastest single cores, though it's only a 200mhz difference from your 3700+ so it's not much of an upgrade.
a b à CPUs
January 27, 2009 5:18:45 AM

Quote:
Hey people, need to know, what is the fastest single core CPU.


You answewred your own question. The FX57.
a b à CPUs
January 27, 2009 7:17:07 AM

SUPERCHARGE said:
to Jerry...sure if you no longer want it, that's be great! Would work for me!

To SDF. Even people with dual-cores had issues with SOME older games. Often, they have to shut down one core to make a game work. Example, need for speed 1 and 2se, porsche unleashed as well as carmageddon, god knows which others. This is an ok fix, but I dont believe dual core with a downed core out there can run as fast a single core.

I've always avoided needing 2 pc's, but I think i'm out of luck now. regardless, I know that my single core AMD architecture with 1 gig pf pc 3200 could run all old games. I did need a boost once in a while though. Thats why im looking for an upgrade on the processor.


Something like a Core 2 Duo E8500 FLATTENS any single core ever made in single threaded speed, so if you got a Core 2 Duo, and disabled one of the cores, it would be far faster than any true single you will ever lay your hands on.
January 27, 2009 7:32:27 AM

If you want the fastes single core CPU. I think you'll have to look at the Athlon 64 FX 57.
January 27, 2009 11:24:38 AM

whoa... how the hell do you clock a 3.0 at 8.22???? thats nearly overclocked 3 times over... I'm assuming whoever did this used some sort of liquid nitrogen cooling.
January 27, 2009 11:28:05 AM

lol yes you need LN2. Perhaps a better question would be "Best practical single-core CPU" :D 
January 27, 2009 11:59:25 AM

Core 2 Duo processors with lots of cache are the best atm for single core performance.

If you have problems playing old games with multicore systems just set the affinity from task manager to one processor. Or with Vista you can add a shortcut with "start /affinity 01 yourgame.exe" to have it on one core from the beginning.

If you still have problems then it is because all graphics card drivers (ati and nvidia) run always in threaded mode that create sync problems with old games. The only way to solve that is to try to disable vsync, first from in-game, else try to force it from drivers.
January 27, 2009 12:45:27 PM

GNR said:
Core 2 Duo processors with lots of cache are the best atm for single core performance.

If you have problems playing old games with multicore systems just set the affinity from task manager to one processor. Or with Vista you can add a shortcut with "start /affinity 01 yourgame.exe" to have it on one core from the beginning.

If you still have problems then it is because all graphics card drivers (ati and nvidia) run always in threaded mode that create sync problems with old games. The only way to solve that is to try to disable vsync, first from in-game, else try to force it from drivers.



hm... ok this is interesting, never knew about affinity. I mainly use vista but use XP pro SP3 for games that do not benefit from directx 10 as it takes much less resources.

I read up on it, so the way this works is you select the program you're using and select which core to run it. It's interesting but still a downside. many of the old games won't run period. So they wont appear in task manager. But still, this is a possibility for those that will at least run.
January 27, 2009 12:53:45 PM

Even newer games don't run on dual core...
One example is Outrun 2006 coast2 Coast...
When you run it your PC restarted...
You have to use a single core....
It even work with a CPU with HT but no dual core...
Damn... I have to play the game at work...with older P4+HT....

How can this be actually...

Aren't the new CPU better even for new games....
January 27, 2009 2:41:14 PM

Problem is I cannot reduce the number of cores in bios below 2 (one core, one thread). On the other hand, using the affinity program seems like a decent idea. I gave it a try 2 games that start but not run properly (porsche unleashed and carmageddon 3)... and it worked... but a problem rose. The games surprisingly ran much too slowly. So one core cannot properly run a mid-age game.

The other problem is that most of the older games that could perhaps work with one core will not even start, so how can I select which core to use on those in XP before the process starts.

to GNR, you mentionned that it is possible to set affinity without running the program in vista at least. I don't understand your instructions though. Can you clarify?
a b à CPUs
January 27, 2009 3:56:11 PM

The problem you have is that those games simply weren't designed with XP in mind; a lot of old games hate XP, and Vista doesn't even have 16-bit support.

Your best option would be to install 98SE to a new partition. Its not a CPU problem; its an OS problem.
January 27, 2009 4:13:42 PM

gamerk316 said:
The problem you have is that those games simply weren't designed with XP in mind; a lot of old games hate XP, and Vista doesn't even have 16-bit support.

Your best option would be to install 98SE to a new partition. Its not a CPU problem; its an OS problem.


Dude, did you not read through my posts? These games were working perfectly in XP with my 3700+

Well, although the older games liek windows 95/98 based don't work, I got most of my MID-AGE games running somewhat. Most of THEM, to my surprise did not seem to have a problem running. Their problem right now is that they're only running on one core, so they're running slow.


a b à CPUs
January 27, 2009 4:35:13 PM

^^even only one i7 core should be faster than a 3700+, so there has to be some other compatibility problems as well... and you can't make a single threaded old program to use more cores than just one
a b à CPUs
January 27, 2009 5:24:44 PM

One i7 core is easily much faster than the fastest single core CPU ever made, so that isn't the problem for speed.
January 27, 2009 7:31:03 PM

SUPERCHARGE said:
Dude, did you not read through my posts? These games were working perfectly in XP with my 3700+

Well, although the older games liek windows 95/98 based don't work, I got most of my MID-AGE games running somewhat. Most of THEM, to my surprise did not seem to have a problem running. Their problem right now is that they're only running on one core, so they're running slow.


Any game or program doesn't care how many cores the computer has(unless it specifically asks). There is no way the number of cores should be a compatibility issue. If intel lost backwards compatibility it would be a huge story. It is most likely a OS issue. Either get an emulator or use a virtual machine to run win98.

If you really want to reduce the number of cores a program can use, you can go into the task manager, right click the program an choose "Set Affinity".
a b à CPUs
January 27, 2009 7:47:27 PM

^^ Beat me to it. Games don't care about how many cores/CPU's there are (unless they are REALLY badly coded...). The fact the run so badly points to something else not being right...
January 27, 2009 8:25:02 PM

The number of cores isn't the problem.

I can run DOS boot disks on my Quad core systems just fine.

The Compatibility issues are most likely coming from your Operating System.

Either Vista or perhaps XP SP3.

I build systems for schools and libraries and some of that software is from Windows 95 & Windows NT 4.

I have found that "Barney Goes to the Circus" will install in Windows 95 compatibility mode in XP but not in XP SP3. It will run just fine in XP sp3 if it is installed before the upgrade.

Eudora email client's installer works in XP sp2 but not under XP sp3. This program also work fine if installed prior to sp3 being installed. However for this one you can just merge an old user profile with it installed into the new system and repair it.

I suggest that you

Try to get XP with no service packs. Get everything working and apply service packs.

This could be difficult because product keys only work on windows versions of the correct SP level.

You may also attempt to uninstall windows installer 3.1 and install windows install 3.0. I haven't tested this approach but it might do the trick.

For Vista or maybe as just a better approach in general:
Just run Windows 95 in VMWare. Your I7 is more than fast enough for this method.
January 27, 2009 8:27:12 PM

The OP knows what he is talking about. There are alot of older games that will not run with newer hardware, ive personally encountered this issue with XP and Vista, the "run in windows X compatibility mode" crap is worthless.
January 27, 2009 9:41:06 PM

pr2thej said:
http://tokyo.cool.ne.jp/yasukazusimo/82201.jpg

pentium 4 clocked at 8220. Nice and stable, hence CPU screenie took with a camera :o 


I'm also declaring BS and shenanigans on that. The highest verified one was 8180... and if you got a crazy clockspeed like 8220, why wouldn't you report it??

I have no problem running games like Myth I (which is really picky...), Starcraft, Total Annihilation, Jazz Jackrabbit, Lemmings :D , on my computer. Check out DOSBOX. My experiences with the Windows Compatibility mode have sucked... It never solves anything for me. Dualboot with WinME (yes, i did just go there... granted, ME sucked, but it was the latest MS OS to be built on that oldschool kernel [no, I can't remember what the kernel's name is, nor do I want to Wikipedia it])... and AFAIK Windows 95 gives you a protection error if you try to run it on a new computer. Then see if it works.

You could also try something like Ubuntu + Wine. It's worth a shot.
January 27, 2009 10:08:09 PM

SUPERCHARGE said:
Hey people, need to know, what is the fastest single core CPU. My mobo for my athlon 3700 died and got an I7. The problem I have now is that I was able to make any old program and game compatible with my 3700 using various programs like "microsoft program compatibility toolkit". We're talking about making games like every need for speed from the first one up work, any carmageddon, mech warriors, duke nukem, etc. But the problem now is that the I7 uses 4 cores and 4 logical cores.

No matter what I try, I can no longer make these old games function, no matter what compatibility program I use. Including reducing the number of cores used in bios "I can only reduce it to one core and one logical core, still creating that problem. And using one core is very ineffective, even for some older games. So now, i'm thinking about building a single core CPU.

From what I know, the AMD 3800 was the last single core CPU built along with the fx-57. Can anyone recommend a better sungle core CPU or are these two pretty much it?

Thanks in advance.


I think the I7 (and all multicore in the matter) would cause problem with some older game. Just like the AMD X2 did in it's first day. To answer this problem, AMD did release a dual core patch, name something like dual core optimizer..

I don't have the time, but I would try to find it and use it. It work for all CPU..IIRC. Or, there was some setting that could be manually set that did the same thing. The app just did it automatically.

January 27, 2009 10:11:59 PM

spathotan said:
The OP knows what he is talking about. There are alot of older games that will not run with newer hardware, ive personally encountered this issue with XP and Vista, the "run in windows X compatibility mode" crap is worthless.

You've encountered that games made for win95 does not run on vista and you conclude it must be a hardware problem, not an OS problem?`Are you high?
January 27, 2009 10:41:23 PM

daskrabbe said:
You've encountered that games made for win95 does not run on vista and you conclude it must be a hardware problem, not an OS problem?`Are you high?


I never specified games made for windows 95, I said "older games". Are you blind?

Dont post anymore.
January 27, 2009 10:43:46 PM

B-Unit said:
'Fastest' and 'Highest Clock Speed' Do not mean the same thing.

Intel makes a single-core Conroe derivitive Celeron http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116039

At stock may not be faster than 3700/4000+, but OC it to anything past 2.5Ghz and its sure to outrun them.


I love the newest review of that chip, was just a week or so ago. Guy paired it with a 4870 :pt1cable: 
January 27, 2009 10:58:51 PM

I like the review from 12/15/2008, guy says its the best bang for the buck. Good god
January 27, 2009 11:49:20 PM

Just use VM ware and emultate 95. You cannot install Windows 95 on your system. Windows 98 and below do not support SATA. Nor will you be able to get drivers for many motherboard components like ICH 10. It's not the CPU. You CPU will run any x86 code for the 286 or newer. The ability to execute the core x86 instruction set is why a processor is called an x86 processor.





This is what you're really looking for:

Abit TX5
AMD K6 233MHz
2 X 64 mb EDO Dimms
ATI MACH 64 4MB VRAM
Sound Blaster Pro 16 ASP
Seagate Decathlon 850
Matsushita MKE CD-ROM
Floppy Drive
Windows 95B

You can bump your FSB all the way to 83MHz with proper cooling on this baby.
But if you do you will need to drop the EDO and just run 72 pins simms.
EDO cant take bus speed beyond 66mhz.
Fortunantely, this baby has both 72 pin simms and EDO dim slots.

This is a top of the line Windows 95 system. Overclocks like a dream.
January 28, 2009 3:16:12 AM

The question no one has asked yet: Why the hell do you need the fastest single core CPU to play games made at the time of Pentium II? I would think that it would actually be BETTER if you found one of the slowest cpus, as some old games even have issues with CPU clock speed. An old geforce 3 and a K7 rig should be plenty sufficient for the titles of games you're throwing around, and you could probably find one of those systems sitting on the curb on your block, or at your nearest goodwill or computer repair store dumpster.
January 28, 2009 3:19:18 AM

joefriday said:
The question no one has asked yet: Why the hell do you need the fastest single core CPU to play games made at the time of Pentium II? I would think that it would actually be BETTER if you found one of the slowest cpus, as some old games even have issues with CPU clock speed. An old geforce 3 and a K7 rig should be plenty sufficient for the titles of games you're throwing around, and you could probably find one of those systems sitting on the curb on your block, or at your nearest goodwill or computer repair store dumpster.



Abit TX5
AMD K6 233MHz
2 X 64 mb EDO Dimms
ATI MACH 64 4MB VRAM
Sound Blaster Pro 16 ASP
Seagate Decathlon 850
Matsushita MKE CD-ROM
Floppy Drive
Windows 95B

You can bump your FSB all the way to 83MHz with proper cooling on this baby.
But if you do you will need to drop the EDO and just run 72 pins simms.
EDO cant take bus speed beyond 66mhz.
Fortunantely, this baby has both 72 pin simms and EDO dim slots.

This is a top of the line Windows 95 system. Overclocks like a dream.
January 28, 2009 12:21:52 PM

average joe said:
Abit TX5
AMD K6 233MHz
2 X 64 mb EDO Dimms
ATI MACH 64 4MB VRAM
Sound Blaster Pro 16 ASP
Seagate Decathlon 850
Matsushita MKE CD-ROM
Floppy Drive
Windows 95B

You can bump your FSB all the way to 83MHz with proper cooling on this baby.
But if you do you will need to drop the EDO and just run 72 pins simms.
EDO cant take bus speed beyond 66mhz.
Fortunantely, this baby has both 72 pin simms and EDO dim slots.

This is a top of the line Windows 95 system. Overclocks like a dream.



Well, why would I build a top of the line windows 95 system if I indicated that i've been successful playing any old game using an amd single core system which I already have the components for minus the board and processor which i should have soon?

I went that way 3 years ago when i first got my 3700 and have an old gaming PC with 1000mhz, 256 mb ram, 40 gb hard drive and a 3dfx 5500 video card. It's sitting in my storage. The reason that PC was abandonned was because it could not play mid-aged games from the year 2000 and above with decent graphics. So i would of needed a third damn computer....So after much toying around, I got my 3700+ to play every single game there is out there. And I believed I could of done the same with my I7.

We'll see. Right now, i'm trying to determine why in the hell the old games that do work are very choppy and the framerate ****, as if I was playing on some old PAckard Bell or something. Almost as if one core isn't enough for them.
a b à CPUs
January 28, 2009 12:37:11 PM

Meh - Don't waste time on ancient hardware. Install a virtual machine and use the OS on it that's best for the game you want to play. Problem Solved, and you have the benefit of the new machine/OS for when you're not toying with old crap.
January 28, 2009 12:37:48 PM

Okay... now I'm rolling... Turns out that my I7 was in EPU mode and was on max power savings. I just launched a couple games, and those old games that were running slowly are all running very quickly now, from 80 - 300 fps. But, still doesn't fix those that weren't running in the first place.

Now as one poster indicated... perhaps it DOES have to do with the fact i now have windows XP SP3. It's too risky to reload SP2, I have 4 other operating systems sitting on top of this XP system. i'll toy around a bit more today.
January 28, 2009 1:05:02 PM

To the one who asked how to run a game on only one core with Vista for compatibility reasons:

1) Create a text file in the same directory as the game's .exe file.

2) Rename it to whatever you want, but the the extension should end in ".bat" or ".cmd". (For example launchrainbowsix.bat)

3) Edit that file with notepad and just add one line and save it:
start /affinity 01 yourgame.exe (where yourgame is the name of the executable file of the game).

Double clicking that will start the game on a single core and all the timing issues with old games related to multicores will be fixed. You can make a shortcut to that file wherever you want.

DONT install AMD Dual Core Optimizer, it is known to create instability. Just do this to solve the multi-processor problem.

Another reason that old games may have problems with Vista is the Aero. To solve this right click on the game's shortcut and from the compatibility tab tick "Disable Desktop Composition". By doing that graphics memory management becomes more "XP like" Most other options in the compatibility tab are useless. Don't bother changing them.

And the last thing you should do if you still have timing problems is to try to disable vsync in-game. Try to search .ini configs of the game if there is no UI option inside the game.


I play a lot of old games on my Quad Core PC. Those 3 tweaks almost guarantee the game will work, if it worked on your old Single Core XP PC.
!