If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Athlon 64 Dual or Single Core ?
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? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Athlon 64 Dual or Single Core ?
"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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Athlon 64 Dual or Single Core ?
"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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Athlon 64 Dual or Single Core ?
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Athlon 64 Dual or Single Core ?
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Athlon 64 Dual or Single Core ?
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Athlon 64 Dual or Single Core ?
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... ) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Single Ch. 768 vs. Dual Ch. 512 ? | QZ | General | 7 | October 4th 05 09:13 PM |
Amd 64 FX-57 | [email protected] | General | 6 | September 18th 05 05:15 PM |
Are dual core CPUs worth it? | Random Person | General | 20 | September 2nd 05 09:10 PM |
P5WD2 + 3.2 ghz 840 dual core, second core only runs at 2.8 ghz nomatter the load | doug | Asus Motherboards | 2 | June 26th 05 06:07 PM |
Slowest Athlon 64 humbles fastest P4 in gaming | Tone-EQ | Overclocking AMD Processors | 1 | December 15th 03 04:09 PM |