Tom's Guide | Tom's Hardware | Tom's Games
 |
 |
 |
Tom's Hardware just did some in depth testing pitting the single core FX against the dual core X2. Sorry all you dual core fanatics, single core comes out on top when it comes to gaming....at least in this round
http://www.twitchguru.com/2006/01/12/how_many_cores_do_you_need_to_be/index.html
This space for rent
A single core cpu with a higher clock speed will always beat a dual core processor with a lower clock speed (in games) until developers start programming games to take advantage of the 2 cores. In SiSoft sandra the dual core processor smokes the single core in cpu benchmarks. The unreal 3 engine is supposed to take advantage of dual core processors, that should produce some interesting benchmarks.
Asus P4P800
P4 2.4c @ 3000 Mhz Zalman CNPS7000A-Cu HSF
ATI Radeon 9800 pro
1 GB OCZ pc 3500 ram
Sound Blaster audigy LS
0 
TOM'S HARDWARE sucks.
anandtech, techreport, xbitlabs, [H]ardOCP, are all far better hardware review sites.
Games will be multi-threaded in the future (and 2 or 3 of the major titles today just got SMP patches)
And for the people who like to game while waiting for a DVD to rip to divx in the background (such as myself); dual core is just awesome!
0
The rationale behind multi core technology makes tremendous sense and promises a huge benefit, and its path just like the 64-bit is inevitable, but as with other computer innovation it is pretty much optional.
I hope to make the transition to dual core from my 754 rig myself the next time I upgrade, skipping the single core 939 altogether.
Leadtek sucks BIG TIME
0
Yeah, but did they benchmark this? :-)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20060110/tc_nf/40788
Good lord! (Both the CPU specs AND the price...)
P.S. Nothing particularly wrong with Tom's Hardware, although I wouldn't put them any better than some other sites...
Please help survivors of Hurricane Katrina!
www.redcross.org
0
"Dual core will be the way of the future, but we are still waiting on applications and drivers to fully support the added capabilities. In the short term, single core is the best approach if you are solely running games. If you are looking for solid gaming while multitasking like running music, using some form of voice over IP service to communicate to your friends, or encoding/decoding, then multi-core is for you."
Realistically, how many people normally run other programs while gaming?
Personally, I have a quad core solution...an Athlon XP-M in the living room, a Sempron in the bedroom, an A64 laptop, & a P3/500 in the basement...LOL
This space for rent
0
"Realistically, how many people normally run other programs while gaming?"
I think there are plenty of people running Ventrilo, Teamspeak, etc. while they're gaming. (Not that it matters since those don't use many CPU cycles.)
And this question must be raised: Do people not do this because they know they can't because they're using single core CPU's? Would they if they had dual cores?
Remains to be seen...
I remember when people used to ask, "How many people honestly surf the internet and burn a CD at the same time?" when it wasn't common. Now it is...
"Personally, I have a quad core solution...an Athlon XP-M in the living room, a Sempron in the bedroom, an A64 laptop, & a P3/500 in the basement..."
I have computers built for tasks. With dual core, there's the opportunity now to reduce the number of computers I own to accomplish the same tasks. This is the reason I moved from physical machines in my labs to virtual machines because it was getting rediculous having 6 lab computers.
Now with one Athlon XP 3200 with 2GB of RAM, I'm finding that I want to run more virtual machines, and CPU is becoming the limiting factor. Dual core very well would make sense as a solution for this.
You also have to remember that games will become increasingly dual core optimized. If the CPU you buy now is what you're going to use next year as well, there's a more compelling argument to get dual core.
Please help survivors of Hurricane Katrina.
www.redcross.org
0
Dual cores will reduce the CPU bottleneck when running a game with other apps at the same time. But having dual cores does nothing for reducing OTHER bottlenecks. For instance if I am ripping a DVD while gaming load times will be significantly increased and if encoding memory will be overtaxed.
"If the CPU you buy now is what you're going to use next year as well, there's a more compelling argument to get dual core."
Perhaps, but depending on the price differential you could probably get a single core today and buy a better dual core a year from now with the money you would save.
Michael J
0
"Perhaps, but depending on the price differential you could probably get a single core today and buy a better dual core a year from now with the money you would save."
No doubt if you can do without dual core today, you'll save money by upgrading to it. That has in fact been what I've generally recommended to people on this forum. I currently do not have dual core. I'm waiting for the need and the drop in price to make the jump attractive.
Please help survivors of Hurricane Katrina.
www.redcross.org
0
"Thank you, hero!"
Not sure why. I'm simply am discussing this, but my position is closer to Jam's than yours. I do not think dual cores are cost effective quite yet.
Please help survivors of Hurricane Katrina.
www.redcross.org
0
It's amazing this thread has more debate than mine about not needing 2GB of RAM...
Ah well... lol
Please help survivors of Hurricane Katrina.
www.redcross.org
0
Had you going, didn't I??
yeah, 1gb is fine now, but in a year, 2GB is going to be the sweet spot.
0  |
 |
 |
This post is quite old and has been locked from receiving new replies. Please create a new posting instead.
| Ads by Google |
