Dual CPU gaming question

Does a Dual core cpu help when it comes to gaming? Im looking at building
an enrty level Amd sli machine but may upgrade it later, so if the dual
core is worth going for id rather get it now and the m board ive choosen
supports it.
How much power would the Amd64 dual core 3800 model give me compared to
the Amd64 3000 standard model?

Any feed back would be appreciated thanks.

kenada wrote:
Does a Dual core cpu help when it comes to gaming? Im looking at building
an enrty level Amd sli machine but may upgrade it later, so if the dual
core is worth going for id rather get it now and the m board ive choosen
supports it.
How much power would the Amd64 dual core 3800 model give me compared to
the Amd64 3000 standard model?

Any feed back would be appreciated thanks.

The X2 3800 wil be faster than the 3000 model: it is often compared to
the 3500 in single core applications.

It isn't very honest though: the 3000 costing about €120 and the X2 3800
about €380

Marc

The advantages to dual core really won't be noticeable until game makers
begin to develop games that take advantage of the technology.Then there will
be an increase in performance.And the dure cores do offer better
multitasking.
"Marc" Marc*dot*hulsebosch*at*gmail*dot*com wrote in message
. nl...
kenada wrote:
Does a Dual core cpu help when it comes to gaming? Im looking at
building
an enrty level Amd sli machine but may upgrade it later, so if the dual
core is worth going for id rather get it now and the m board ive choosen
supports it.
How much power would the Amd64 dual core 3800 model give me compared to
the Amd64 3000 standard model?

Any feed back would be appreciated thanks.

The X2 3800 wil be faster than the 3000 model: it is often compared to
the 3500 in single core applications.

It isn't very honest though: the 3000 costing about €120 and the X2 3800
about €380

Marc

Gojira wrote:
The advantages to dual core really won't be noticeable until game makers
begin to develop games that take advantage of the technology.Then there will
be an increase in performance.And the dure cores do offer better
multitasking.

I hear that a lot, but there are certainly some advantages, even for the
gamer. You eliminate the virusscanner, firewall, antispyware, download
program and so on.

Thus there is an entire core for the game alone. The game will not only
have more processing power, but also the cache and there will be no more
deciding which process is allowed to use the processor on a certain moment.

Marc

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 18:58:48 +0100, Marc
Marc*dot*hulsebosch*at*gmail*dot*com wrote:

Gojira wrote:
The advantages to dual core really won't be noticeable until game makers
begin to develop games that take advantage of the technology.Then there will
be an increase in performance.And the dure cores do offer better
multitasking.

I hear that a lot, but there are certainly some advantages, even for the
gamer. You eliminate the virusscanner, firewall, antispyware, download
program and so on.

Yes, because one can see that they don't use much CPU time,
very, very little. In fact, your system will probably be
slower at gaming with a dual core than a single core because
nothing is completely *free*, a single core has historically
been able to run with higher bus and/or memory timings.



Thus there is an entire core for the game alone. The game will not only
have more processing power, but also the cache and there will be no more
deciding which process is allowed to use the processor on a certain moment.


Thesignificant benefit to games will come if the game is
multithreaded or otherwise optimized, except for some
situations where there was another device being used
extensively for the game, like a soft-processed audio.

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 06:18:19 -0500, "kenada"
wrote:

Does a Dual core cpu help when it comes to gaming? Im looking at building
an enrty level Amd sli machine but may upgrade it later, so if the dual
core is worth going for id rather get it now and the m board ive choosen
supports it.
How much power would the Amd64 dual core 3800 model give me compared to
the Amd64 3000 standard model?

Any feed back would be appreciated thanks.

For the same $, you're better off getting the single-core
for current games. Obviously once more games come into the
market with optimizations for dual cores, dual core will be
of more benefit. That's a bit beside the point as this
future potential is lost as future games will also be more
demanding and benefit from a faster CPU and video card too.

The appropriate single core to contrast with a 3800 X2 would
be a 4000. Even in a supposed "multitasking" environment,
for most users it will be faster! Why? Simple- most users
are not running multiple tasks which require realtime
performance, the apps in the background are idling and the
utmost performance is needed for the foreground app the user
is currently using. Most users all users though, you can
check task manager and see if you have something in
particular running that requires a lot of CPU time, besides
your foreground app at any given moment.

I'm not saying there are huge benefits for dual cores yet, there are a
few small ones. And besides gaming many people say a dual (core) system
feels more responsive, and it is faster in multitasking

Add that to the fact that the 3000+ is a simple Athlon64 model and the
3800+ isn't and I would say that if the difference in money doesn't
matter you should take the X2 3800+

Marc

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 21:28:06 +0100, Marc
Marc*dot*hulsebosch*at*gmail*dot*com wrote:

I'm not saying there are huge benefits for dual cores yet, there are a
few small ones. And besides gaming many people say a dual (core) system
feels more responsive, and it is faster in multitasking


Yes I've heard people make the claim too, and sometimes it's
true but others their system is slower, even benchmarks
slower at games but they still insist otherwise, even in the
very games that are benchmarking slower.

Some if it is just psychological, people dump a lot on a CPU
and want to believe it's making a buggy application run
well... since there should not be any "more responsive" feel
to a normally working system with properly coded
applications. I've even heard of people claiming the text
they type is faster with dual CPUs- which is impossible
unless they have a very serious problem with the system that
has nothing to do with # of CPUs installed.



Add that to the fact that the 3000+ is a simple Athlon64 model and the
3800+ isn't and I would say that if the difference in money doesn't
matter you should take the X2 3800+

That's just it, if the difference in money doesn't matter,
one would choose the 4000, not the 3800 X2. There's no way
a 3800 X2 will be as fast as a 4000 in the average game.
It's not that I"m against dual-core, rather than dual core
is not a way to increase performance in one demanding
application, it's a way to keep two applications both at max
performance (that they can both run simultaneously, but not
an expectation that either would run as fast as having one
core and the more important app at higher priority).

"kony" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 21:28:06 +0100, Marc
Marc*dot*hulsebosch*at*gmail*dot*com wrote:

I'm not saying there are huge benefits for dual cores yet, there are a
few small ones. And besides gaming many people say a dual (core) system
feels more responsive, and it is faster in multitasking


Yes I've heard people make the claim too, and sometimes it's
true but others their system is slower, even benchmarks
slower at games but they still insist otherwise, even in the
very games that are benchmarking slower.

Some if it is just psychological, people dump a lot on a CPU
and want to believe it's making a buggy application run
well... since there should not be any "more responsive" feel
to a normally working system with properly coded
applications. I've even heard of people claiming the text
they type is faster with dual CPUs- which is impossible
unless they have a very serious problem with the system that
has nothing to do with # of CPUs installed.



Add that to the fact that the 3000+ is a simple Athlon64 model and the
3800+ isn't and I would say that if the difference in money doesn't
matter you should take the X2 3800+

That's just it, if the difference in money doesn't matter,
one would choose the 4000, not the 3800 X2. There's no way
a 3800 X2 will be as fast as a 4000 in the average game.
It's not that I"m against dual-core, rather than dual core
is not a way to increase performance in one demanding
application, it's a way to keep two applications both at max
performance (that they can both run simultaneously, but not
an expectation that either would run as fast as having one
core and the more important app at higher priority).

In the direct comparisons in gaming that I've seen,the 4400+ comes closest
to matching the 4000,this of course is with present games like Doom 3.How
the game makers will take advantage of dual core in the future remains to be
seen.

You are better off getting a single core at equivalent cost and make
sure you have minimal background apps running.

E.g.
a FX-55 instead of a X2 4800+
a 3800+ instead of a X2 3800+

AIUI either core of the X2 3800+ will be inferior to the single core
3800+. So a "dedicated" single core 3800+ would beat a single core from
an X2.

There's also what the others said about programs not making use of X2s
at the moment.