Curse

lord_shar · May 24, 2006, 08:54 PM // 20:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by swaaye

You will see zero benefit from a dual core CPU in almost all games right now. In fact, the only game I know of that uses my second core somewhat is Oblivion. There are some patches for some FPS games, like the awful Quake 4, but lol those don't mean much to me. I've read it's extremely difficult to make games take good advantage of SMP so while surely there will be future games that are capable of it, they won't be night and day better. And, in all games that support SMP right now, the GPU is what determines your speed far above anything the CPU can do.

A higher clocked single core CPU will be faster, and probably cheaper lol.

Not completely true

. XP takes advantage of dual cores, so even if a game app is only single threaded, essential background processes are still being evenly distributed between both cores to maximize performance. I'm running a dual core laptop now, and when I check CPU utilization with only GW active, I usually see both cores working at ~55% load. If McAfee unexpectedly kicks in during a high load game scene, my system keeps right on going with no visible performance hit. I can open 10+ IE browsers, Windows Explorers, and other apps at the same time with no hit to GW. Such activity brings my single core P4-2.5ghz to a screeching halt. In today's multi-tasking OS environment, there's really no reason to go single core anymore.

Pentium4-D is only $130... How can you not be temped by this 4.1ghz bargain?

lightblade · May 24, 2006, 11:09 PM // 23:09

The FX series just too damn expensive, and offer not much improvement!

$700+ for just 512 L2 cache...way not worth it

Lurid · May 24, 2006, 11:23 PM // 23:23

FX series CPU's (current ones) have a minimum of 1MB L2 cache per core. Thats not the major feature though, people buy them for the high stock clocks, the name, and the unlocked multiplier. Which is only useful if your overclocking, and / or are too lazy to just overclock the usual way.

Sax Dakota · May 25, 2006, 01:07 AM // 01:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lurid

^-- Your Opteron section is alittle off. You fail to take into consideration the s939 Opterons, which not only overclock higher, use less voltage @ stock, and have higher L2 cache than most of the A64's that you would consider buying. IMO there are only two dual cores worth mentioning, the AMD Opteron 165 and the AMD X2 3800+. If possible get the 165.

Well again Its still around 330 dollars. In this Case I would still opt for the San Diego 4000+ based purely on performance in a gaming world, my post was in reference to how these stack in a gaming benchmark. This cache isn't going to result too much in the gaming world. When you start using the multitask capabilities of the X2/ highend opteron, then it gets interesting

Seef II · May 25, 2006, 04:27 AM // 04:27

Just to clear up some misinformation:

Quote:

Xeon - This guy is optimized for the 64bit world. It doesn't run as efficient when placed in a 32bit world imho. But if you are running a server and or ultra high end at home WORKSTATION ( 3ds Max, heavy rendering etc.) where you would need the extra memory go this route.

Opteron stuff

Opterons are server-grade Athlon 64s. Exact same silicon, just that the Opties are tested more rigorously.
Xeons are server-grade Pentium 4 (Prescott). Again, it's the same silicon, just validated in a different process. There are some differences, like early Prescotts (5x0, 5x5 series) not having EM64T while the early Nocona Xeons did, or a 2 GHz 1Mx2 dual-core AMD64 processor (the 165, I believe? I'm more of an intel guy) but the chips are otherwise identical. A P4 551 G1-step will perform the same as a Xeon 3.4 G1 stepping, 64-bit or 32-bit. Within a family, of course, the 64 v. 32-bit performance will be relatively the same.

Quote:

The FX series just too damn expensive, and offer not much improvement!
$700+ for just 512 L2 cache...way not worth it

All FX processors have had 1M L2, even the old S940 FX51 and FX53s.