24 replies to this topic

[Blodo]

I'm only taking gaming into account. In the case of games that don't support dual core my point is still valid. WC3 is an old enough game to not make any difference when you got the CPU power halved, but newer games will make a difference. And I know for a fact that quite a few of them still don't run a dual process to make a good use of the dual cpu setup. Newest games probably will run both as a must, that's why I recommend dual if you buy your machine - say - six months from now.

[Mastermind]

There's no point getting a slightly faster single core CPU over a dual core, as you also have the advantage of not having any background tasks messing with your game process. That can just have its own core to go to town on, and the OS can keep one for itself to do what it needs to in the background. There's no cost benefit to not getting a dual core, so it's really pointless not to. The only non-dual core processors left are very inexpensive P4's and Celerons, and no one is buying those for a gaming PC anyway.

[Blodo]

There is a point when you take into account that a game that does not handle dual cores will not get any benefits from it, moreoever, it will actually slow down. There are more than silly celerons left, and I wouldn't advise a dual for another few months until everything actually gets a gripe. Take gaming into account, try playing a demanding game on the dual core that doesn't support it and you will see. Besides in a few months there should be duals with enough processing power per core to outclass the current ones and keep par with single cores when working on one core only. Right now - it just isn't worth it if you plan being a gamer mostly.

[poedguy]

As I said already, a dual core system will NOT slow down any game if that game is only single threaded. The Core 2 Duo systems are MUCH faster than any Pentium 4 per core as they have a much more efficient way of working so they can do more per clock cycle.

There are plenty of benchmarks out there that prove this as well. There is most definitely already dual and even quad cores out that eclipse the standard and even "extreme" range of single-core chips.

[Mastermind]

There is a point when you take into account that a game that does not handle dual cores will not get any benefits from it, moreoever, it will actually slow down. There are more than silly celerons left, and I wouldn't advise a dual for another few months until everything actually gets a gripe. Take gaming into account, try playing a demanding game on the dual core that doesn't support it and you will see. Besides in a few months there should be duals with enough processing power per core to outclass the current ones and keep par with single cores when working on one core only. Right now - it just isn't worth it if you plan being a gamer mostly.

A dual core processor will be no slower than an equivalent single core processor at gaming. As it stands now, the fastest stock processors available are all dual core. If you are really a serious gamer, you will be running a dual core system. It has no down side, and will only help in the future. Your argument might have been true 6-12 months ago, but it doesn't stand today. Buying a single core processor today is a waste of money and potential.

To put a real comparison...
The fastest single core AMD processor is the FX-57 in Socket 939 which runs at 2.6 Ghz, and costs $320. An X2 5200+ in Socket AM2 runs at 2.4Ghz, and costs $280. If you absolutely need to match the speed, an FX-60 in Socket AM2 runs at 2.6Ghz, and costs $525. You would get the advantage of 200Mhz for $40 more, and needing to use an outdated motherboard. On the Intel side, I can't find anything more than a 3Ghz P4 in LGA775 for around $100. A Core 2 Duo E6300 runs around $180, and runs at 1.86 Ghz. I don't know where the benchmarks are, but the Core 2 Duo is impressively fast for its clock speed.