PC hardware: AMD Dual Core Vs. Single Core
AMD Dual Core Vs. Single Core
by Mikejt62 - 6/14/06 9:50 PMI am building a new comp for mainly gaming, but i do also Multitask. Would the Athlon™64 X2 4200+ Dual-Core or the AMD Athlon™64 3500+ be better for this system. And also how does the rest of the system look performance wise, meaning the Vidoe card and Mother board? I am looking to spend NO more then $1,000. and i am making this comp at http://www.cyberpowerpc.com if anyone has a nice system to show me from there. Thnks!!
CPU: (939-pin) AMD Athlon™64 3500+ CPU
OR
CPU: (939-pin) AMD Athlon™64 X2 4200+ Dual-Core CPU
MOTHERBOARD: (Sckt939)EVGA nForce4 SLI Chipset SATA RAID Dual PCI-E Mainboard w/GbLAN,USB2.0,&7.1Audio
MEMORY: 512 MB PC3200 400MHz DDR MEMORY + my own 1G i will be adding.
VIDEO: NVIDIA Geforce 7600 GT 256MB PCI Express x16 Video Card
HDD: 160GB SATA-II 3.0Gb/s 8M Cache 7200RPM
Dual core
by damasta55r - 6/14/06 10:22 PM In reply to: AMD Dual Core Vs. Single Core by Mikejt62Beware of cyberpower. You might want to build your own computer?
ROger
Beware??
by Mikejt62 - 6/14/06 11:30 PM In reply to: Dual core by damasta55rWhy beware of cyberpower? i bought one a couple of years ago and it stil runs great...wats wrong with them?
Dual
by WhyFi - 6/15/06 5:14 AM In reply to: AMD Dual Core Vs. Single Core by Mikejt62Go with the dual core.
Once you go dual, you'll never look back. Even if you're not multitasking, you've still got a lot of processes going on in the background (like anti-virus software), and they'll sap your resources.
Oh, also - why spend the money on an SLI board? If you're thinking that you'll add another 7600 sometime... you're probably not going to actually do that. What's the 7600 priced at? $160 or so? In a year or so, a single $160 dollar card will probably outperform two 7600s. If you're thinking about adding it right away, a single 7900 would be a better way to spend the total 300-some-odd dollars. SLI/Crossfire just isn't worth it unless you're talking about buying two top-of-the-line cards at the same time.
Memory - you said that you'll be adding some of your own, could you elaborate? If you go with a board that's capable of running dual channel memory, you'd be better off not mixing and matching the memory sticks- you can't run dual channel with mixed sticks. Also, if you take up all four slots, it'll slow things down as well - with the memory controller on the Athlon, if you run four sticks, the memory with either a) slow to 333mhz, or b) run at a 2T command rate as opposed to a 1T command rate.
What about this
by Mikejt62 - 6/15/06 8:03 AM In reply to: Dual by WhyFiDoes this MOBO and using there Memory look like a better set up? i had to downgrade the video card to stay in the budget...Check it out
CPU: (939-pin) AMD Athlon™64 X2 4200+ Dual-Core CPU w/ HyperTransport Technology
MOTHERBOARD: (Sckt939) Biostar TForce 6100-939 NVIDIA Geforce 6100 Chipset SATA PCIE All-in-One w/Video, LAN, USB2.0, &5.1Audio
MEMORY: 1024 MB (512MBx2) PC3200 400MHz Dual Channel DDR MEMORY (Corsair Value Select)
VIDEO CARD: NVIDIA Geforce 7300 GT 512MB 16X PCI EXPRESS VIDEO CARD....Is the $25 worth it to get the 512MB or Should i stay with the 256MB????
HARD DRIVE: 160GB SATA-II 3.0Gb/s 8M Cache 7200RPM Hard Drive
Duel core processor
by ilib - 6/15/06 1:12 PM In reply to: What about this by Mikejt62I recently had my custom computer built, and after talking to a few experts it was decided to go with a non-duel core x64 processor. The reason is that no computer games, not even Windows XP OS is designed to be multi-threaded yet. I firt had a duel core x64 4200+ and it lagged very badly on games. If your more into gaming than multitasking, and you dont want to wait for the new OS (vista) to come out. Then you are better off getting either a normal x64 or a FX processor.
Re:
by WhyFi - 6/15/06 3:19 PM In reply to: Duel core processor by ilibAre you saying that a single core CPU is better for gaming than a dual core CPU at the same clock speed?! Are you saying that you dual core CPUs are somehow handicapped when it comes to gaming?! Maybe what you're trying to say is "If you don't get a dual core CPU, you can afford to get a single core CPU with a higher clock speed." Even so - gimme a break. The GPU factors in much more heavily when it comes to gaming and being able to relegate system tasks to another processor can only help. I have an X2 4200 and an Opteron 170, both of which are dual core, and neither of which has lagged in a game.
Were this my build, I think that I would go with the the X2 3800+ (or even better, an Opteron 165), stick with the 7600, decent ram and OC the rig on a nice but affordable board like a DFI nF4 Ultra D.
multi-threading?
by ilib - 6/17/06 5:29 PM In reply to: Duel core processor by ilib''The reason is that no computer games, not even Windows XP OS is designed to be multi-threaded yet.''
This coming from a computer expert who owns his own custom computer store. He may be wrong, but until I hear otherwise I would have to agree with him.
GO with the dual core.
by rebelflag - 6/19/06 1:25 PM In reply to: multi-threading? by ilibEven though most gamesand apps are not written for dual core processors or multi-threading, it is worth it to get the dual core processor. More apps and games are being written for dual cores, and even more will take advantage of it following the release of Vista. In the mean time, download an app called "set affinity" and you can assign processes to either one of the cores, to spread out the work load. That will also help with gaming performance, if you can run background apps on the second core. Also most people who are having "lag or stuttering" issues with dual core procs in games can solve the problem by using the set affinity program.
Re:
by WhyFi - 6/19/06 2:07 PM In reply to: multi-threading? by ilibHe MUST be right, then! Maybe your computer store friend should tell Velocity, Alienware, Voodoo, Overdrive, etc that they're doing it all wrong by building their high-end rigs with dual cores...
Sure, few games, if any, are multi-threaded, but show me a computer (especially a Windows machine!) that doesn't have three-dozen services running in the background even when you're not 'multi-tasking.'
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
