Athlon 64 Dual or Single Core ?

I'm building a new machine based (at least partially) on being able to
multitask more reliably, and would like some advice as to whether a single
or dual-core processor would be best. The new set up will be based on the
following main hardwa

Abit AN8 Fatal1ty SLI motherboard
2 gig of PC3200 DDR in dual channel mode
Athlon 64 X2 4200+ cpu (???)
with XP Pro 32 bit operating system

I'm leaning toward the dual core processor because, at heart, this is a
business machine that I tend to use with lots of different things going at
once. These are all Office-type programs (non-multithread), but good sized
and lots of them, and my current P4 2.4 machine tends to bog down, even with
a gig of memory. I also want to be able to get into some serious games with
this new machine, but probably will not take advantage of the SLI at this
time. I may overclock modestly.

Here's my question: without running heavy video editing programs and the
like, is the dual core processer going to be much help, or would I do better
with a faster single core processor?

- Magnusfarce

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 17:24:08 -0700, Magnusfarce thoughtfully wrote:

I'm building a new machine based (at least partially) on being able to
multitask more reliably, and would like some advice as to whether a
single or dual-core processor would be best. The new set up will be
based on the following main hardwa

Abit AN8 Fatal1ty SLI motherboard
2 gig of PC3200 DDR in dual channel mode Athlon 64 X2 4200+ cpu (???)
with XP Pro 32 bit operating system

I'm leaning toward the dual core processor because, at heart, this is a
business machine that I tend to use with lots of different things going
at once. These are all Office-type programs (non-multithread), but good
sized and lots of them, and my current P4 2.4 machine tends to bog down,
even with a gig of memory. I also want to be able to get into some
serious games with this new machine, but probably will not take
advantage of the SLI at this time. I may overclock modestly.

Here's my question: without running heavy video editing programs and
the like, is the dual core processer going to be much help, or would I
do better with a faster single core processor?

- Magnusfarce

I'm fairly certain current operating systems and application programs are
utilizing dual core features and XP 32-bit is not taking advantage of
64-bit processing. A Wired article points out that WinXP is a 5yr OS.
The main advantage now of dual core is it is more heat efficient than
single core but they are processing at relatively the same speeds. The
single core AMD lines with quiet-n-cool really are quiet and cool.

If cost is not an issue you can get everything otherwise I'd do a online
research on your proposed components. Sounds like you have a problem
with memory or video, not so much processor or motherboard. After all
how demanding can an Office application be compared to graphics and
gaming?

"Magnusfarce" wrote...

Here's my question: without running heavy video editing programs and the
like, is the dual core processer going to be much help, or would I do
better
with a faster single core processor?

Dual-core will likely work better whenever you have 2 or more CPU-intensive
apps running.

A single app (e.g., a database) can hog all the resources of a single CPU
for some time, disallowing simultaneous use of another app. The dual-core
CPU will help this.

"jaster" wrote...

If cost is not an issue you can get everything otherwise I'd do a online
research on your proposed components. Sounds like you have a problem
with memory or video, not so much processor or motherboard. After all
how demanding can an Office application be compared to graphics and
gaming?

An inefficient database app (even a "small" db like Outlook/Outlook Express)
can hog a CPU for quite a while. Even office multitasking environments can
task a CPU more than a game.

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 03:49:09 +0000, John Weiss thoughtfully wrote:

"jaster" wrote...

If cost is not an issue you can get everything otherwise I'd do a online
research on your proposed components. Sounds like you have a problem
with memory or video, not so much processor or motherboard. After all
how demanding can an Office application be compared to graphics and
gaming?

An inefficient database app (even a "small" db like Outlook/Outlook
Express) can hog a CPU for quite a while. Even office multitasking
environments can task a CPU more than a game.

Yes I was just trying to make a point about real need versus want.
Single applications would not be helped much by dual core systems
efficient db or not. Running multiple applications like I do all the
time on my AMD XP2000+. 512mb ram system would be helped by dual core.
Ie, downloading newsposts while unraring a file and writing an email or
surfing.

For the OP here's an article link on an Intel vs AMD dual core
stress test :
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2005...ll_performance

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 17:24:08 -0700, "Magnusfarce"
wrote:

I'm building a new machine based (at least partially) on being able to
multitask more reliably, and would like some advice as to whether a single
or dual-core processor would be best. The new set up will be based on the
following main hardwa

Abit AN8 Fatal1ty SLI motherboard
2 gig of PC3200 DDR in dual channel mode
Athlon 64 X2 4200+ cpu (???)
with XP Pro 32 bit operating system

I'm leaning toward the dual core processor because, at heart, this is a
business machine that I tend to use with lots of different things going at
once. These are all Office-type programs (non-multithread), but good sized
and lots of them, and my current P4 2.4 machine tends to bog down, even with
a gig of memory. I also want to be able to get into some serious games with
this new machine, but probably will not take advantage of the SLI at this
time. I may overclock modestly.

Here's my question: without running heavy video editing programs and the
like, is the dual core processer going to be much help, or would I do better
with a faster single core processor?

Let's look at it this way: Dual core is the future. If it isn't being
fully utilized right now, it will be. You should never build your
system based on your needs or technology right now, but rather for the
future. Your investment will likely take you 4 to 6 years into the
future, with possibly an OS upgrade, as well as several software
upgrades. The future market belongs to dual core.

Think of it this way: If you built a system when PCI-express was
introduced, and you built with an AGP based board instead, thinking
you don't need PCI-express, what happenes now that nVidia and ATi
stopped making new AGP boards and your system can't keep up with your
newest had-to-have game? That moment is almost here. You would have
built a dinosaur from the moment you fired it up for the first time.

From this point forward, most software that can take advantage of dual
cores WILL. Pretty soon, your once screaming single core systems will
look like they're driving into the wind with a parachute open.

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 10:30:12 -0400, ruel24 thoughtfully wrote:
[snip]Another example, the OP wants SLI so if he selects nVidia he will
need to buy 2 of the same 6600 or better cards but if he goes ATI he could
buy mixed cards X700 or better. Most of the cutting edge of the same
relative speed isn't significantly faster, ie, dual core vs single core,
PCI-E vs AGP, SLI vs non-SLI. Also I don't think game vendors want to
write for cutting edge hardware. Sure BF2 is demanding, UT runs better
the better the platform but software vendors sell to the masses and are
not exclusive to cutting edge technology.



Let's look at it this way: Dual core is the future. If it isn't being
fully utilized right now, it will be. You should never build your system
based on your needs or technology right now, but rather for the future.
Your investment will likely take you 4 to 6 years into the future, with
possibly an OS upgrade, as well as several software upgrades. The future
market belongs to dual core.


I think it's personal preference. You could build or buy the latest
cutting edge system but chances are you're going to need to upgrade
something anyway. Like the poor saps who bought into EIDE, or better
will you buy a HD-DVD or BluRay DVD player now?

Think of it this way: If you built a system when PCI-express was
introduced, and you built with an AGP based board instead, thinking you
don't need PCI-express, what happenes now that nVidia and ATi stopped
making new AGP boards and your system can't keep up with your newest
had-to-have game? That moment is almost here. You would have built a
dinosaur from the moment you fired it up for the first time.


Another example, the OP wants SLI so if he selects nVidia he will need to
buy 2 of the same 6600 or better cards but if he goes ATI he could buy
mixed cards X700 or better. Most of the cutting edge of the same relative
speed isn't significantly faster, ie, dual core vs single core, PCI-E vs
AGP, SLI vs non-SLI.

BTW I have an X800 AGP so at least ATI is making AGP.

From this point forward, most software that can take advantage of dual
cores WILL. Pretty soon, your once screaming single core systems will
look like they're driving into the wind with a parachute open.

I don't think game vendors want to write for cutting edge hardware.
Sure BF2 is demanding, UT runs better the better the platform but software
vendors sell to the masses and are not exclusive to cutting edge
technology.

You are correct though in 4-5 yrs it may well be but it'll cost double now
what it will cost 4-5yrs from now.

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 18:47:19 GMT, jaster wrote:


Let's look at it this way: Dual core is the future. If it isn't being
fully utilized right now, it will be. You should never build your system
based on your needs or technology right now, but rather for the future.
Your investment will likely take you 4 to 6 years into the future, with
possibly an OS upgrade, as well as several software upgrades. The future
market belongs to dual core.


I think it's personal preference. You could build or buy the latest
cutting edge system but chances are you're going to need to upgrade
something anyway. Like the poor saps who bought into EIDE, or better
will you buy a HD-DVD or BluRay DVD player now?

Yes, you do upgrade as time goes by, but chances are, unless you're
one of those that _have_ to stay on the cutting edge, your motherboard
and processor won't get upgraded until you do another build because by
the time it begins to feel slow, AMD or Intel has changed the socket
and obsoleted your processor/motherboard combo.

On top of that, what I said is true. Why build a machine based on the
here and now? Why not spend a reasonable amount of money to build for
your future needs? I'm not talking about spending oodles more money to
get on the bandwagon of a future technology. A 3800+ Athlon 64 X2 is a
very reasonable purchase decision in lieu of a 3800 Athlon 64 single
core. The 3800+ single lists for $282 for one model and $306 for
another, which I couldn't tell the difference except for the model
number, and the dual core X2 lists for$329. Not a lot of dead
presidents to give up for future performance gains.

Think of it this way: If you built a system when PCI-express was
introduced, and you built with an AGP based board instead, thinking you
don't need PCI-express, what happenes now that nVidia and ATi stopped
making new AGP boards and your system can't keep up with your newest
had-to-have game? That moment is almost here. You would have built a
dinosaur from the moment you fired it up for the first time.


Another example, the OP wants SLI so if he selects nVidia he will need to
buy 2 of the same 6600 or better cards but if he goes ATI he could buy
mixed cards X700 or better. Most of the cutting edge of the same relative
speed isn't significantly faster, ie, dual core vs single core, PCI-E vs
AGP, SLI vs non-SLI.

I understand that many current software titles aren't written to take
advantage of dual core, but it's coming. Many game programmers have
stated that games can very well take advantage of dual cores and will.
Likewise for many mainstream applications. You can also count on
Windows to better scale for dual cores in the future, making having
multiple applications running at the same time slow the system down a
lot less or not at all.

BTW, Linux already scales _very_well_ for dual cores...

BTW I have an X800 AGP so at least ATI is making AGP.

Yes, and the 6800 and 6600 series nVidia cards, too, are available for
AGP for the time being. But, 7800 series cards are not, and will not
be available for the AGP slot. Neither are, or will be, the X1800,
X1600, and X1300 series from ATi. They're all PCI-e only. The AGP slot
is all but obsolete.

From this point forward, most software that can take advantage of dual
cores WILL. Pretty soon, your once screaming single core systems will
look like they're driving into the wind with a parachute open.

I don't think game vendors want to write for cutting edge hardware.
Sure BF2 is demanding, UT runs better the better the platform but software
vendors sell to the masses and are not exclusive to cutting edge
technology.

I don't believe so. As soon as a new DirectX is supported, the latest
got-to-have games support them. The demand for processing power is
getting heavier and heavier with games. Next up will be the physics
processing units. Before long, it'll be like playing games with
software emulated 3D if you don't have a physics engine installed.

You are correct though in 4-5 yrs it may well be but it'll cost double now
what it will cost 4-5yrs from now.

I'm not, in any way, advocating spending a bundle on building for the
future. I'm a proponent of spending a reasonable amount, though. Like
I pointed out earlier, the 3800+ X2 is barely more expensive than the
3800+ single core. I assumed that the OP was going to spend around
that much, since he asked which processor should he get. Why spend
nearly $300 for a single core, when the market is obviously moving
toward dual core and multi core, and software is undoubtedly being
developed as we speak to take advantage, when a perfectly good dual
core is just a few bucks more? Besides, I read that the 3800+ X2
overclocks extremely well... )