Single vs Dual Core AMD

[ilikeoatmeal]

The AMD FX-57 (and soon to be 60) is the best processor for current gamers to buy, despite being a single-core processor. Dual core processors, such as the AMD X2 4800+ are known for their brilliance in multi-tasking applications.

My question, however, is whether or not a dual-core processors would be worth investing in for the future in next-generation gaming. (i.e. would a dual core cpu potentially run games like Elder Scrolls 4 Oblivion, and other 2006 releases better than a single core?)

Ideas, arguments, links?

[Nox]

sorry, don't have crystal balls

Nox

[UKMuFFiN]

Games next year are sposed to take advantage of dual cores, i mean why wouldn't they?

so i wouldn't say no to a 4800

[Smokey21]

Ut2007, which is due out next year will utilize dual core.

IMO, if you can afford a FX-57, get a 4800+, and some decent cooling, overclock it to 2.6-2.7ghz and hey presto, you have a very fast CPU. Assuming you will have a powerful video card, the differenece between say a FX-57 at 3.1ghz (which is about the max u can get on air) and a X2 at 2.7ghz. is small.

[shaithis]

For me the benefits of dual-core outweigh a slightly higher clock speed and 1 core.

Windows is snappier, I can multi task MUCH better and some games are already appearing that will use the 2 cores.

Don't forget, many games now are limited to the graphics card past a certain CPU speed.

[Xaar]

I know im dumping my Opteron 146 (which i had running stable around 2900mhz) in favour of a Opteron 165 (which i've got running stable at 2700ish).
Also, from my personal benchmarking, I noticed the 165 scored higher than the 146 in 3dmark01/03, though the deciding factor for me is obviously how responsive it is in multi-tasking

[|{££|"]

isn't there gonna be a dual core fx? prolly grand or more though

[TheAnimus]

DUal core gaming is always an intresting one.

I've been a fan of dual proc since my farthers PII-350 machine (dual).

This used to run UT, better than my AMD-K6-2-400 with hardware accelerated graphics!

Now a lot of games take advantage (Quake3 for instnace) but a lot of games are badly designed and it just dosen't work any faster (Quake 3 for instance) some are so badly made, it actually runs slightly slower (Quake 3 for instance). A lot of reviwers stop there.

But if your going to game, you can set all the background tasks to the other CPU (afinity masks) if you get all the proccesses your looking at a 20% speed improvement on a "standard setup" acording to my benchmarks. This is well worht considering the boost to games.

But if your like me, you buy your dualie to keep your computer running incredibly fast, even when an application hangs/crashes/really thinking hard you still have no latency (on a good kernel, 2.6 linux, NT 3.5+).

I love SMP

[UKMuFFiN]

isn't there gonna be a dual core fx? prolly grand or more though

the fx60 isnt it?

[Oakleyb]

yeah, I think the fx60 will be dual core (like 90% certain). btw, benchmarks are now showing a small improvement of dual cores over single cores at equivalent speeds, games such as serious sam 2 and quake 4 seem to be using some of the dual core capabilities, but not very well just yet. We'll have to wait for the next gen of games b4 seeing any real improvments. XBox 360, here we come...

[csl]

Well apparently Oblivion will utilise dual core CPUs, so I'd definitely upgrade to one. It'll be the way to go over the next year, surely.

Oblivion looks fantastic, I can't wait to play it, even if it does mean buying a new PC.