Single or Dual Core Processor??

[astorre]

I am looking to either build or buy a gaming spec machine.

I have been looking at either an AMD 4000+ or AMD x2 4200+, Intel D 920 processors. I have read on some sites that for gaming spec machines the dual core processors are not worth the extra money, and that porformance can be better with some of the single core processors.

I have never built my own machine before, but it appears you can get a better spec machine for your money than buy a mid point Alienware.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated

 

[paparazi]

All are fine choices but you have been very specific in your use, so your own analysis is indeed correct.
Although I own an X2 4200, single threaded apps "gaming" do not benefit from the two cores.
My advice, save on the CPU, go for the single core A64 4000 and spend more on what will make the biggest differance "THE GRAPHICS CARD"
AMD definately has quite a lead in the gaming arena at this price point although the D 920 would make for an awesome base for video editting.
Horse's for courses.
Martin




We like members to GIVE and not just TAKE.
Participate and help others.

 

[cdogg]

Gaming doesn't benefit unless you want to, say, burn a DVD or multi-task with other apps while playing a game. That's where it comes in handy right now.

Realize that the road maps for both Intel and AMD are shifting to multi-CPU cores eventually for all new releases. Both camps are trying to set a trend now, so that software developers realize the importance of multi-threading their apps. Because most companies don't want to spend the money, many have a tendency to hold off until a particular technology is mainstream. That's exactly what AMD and Intel are trying to accomplish...

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[paparazi]

cdogg, I agree absolutely with what you are saying, I was of course addressing the question directly and as this is primarily a gaming rig, the graphical "in game" performance is effected most dramaticly by the video adapter itself.

ie: another $100 spent on the CPU will net only several more frames per second in game, where as another $100's spent on a better graphics card could amount to 10/15 more frames per second with the possibility of being able to handle higher display resolutions and visual effects.

It is also worth pointing out the immenant release (possibly June now) of AMD's DDR2 socket 940 platform the AM2.
I guess it all depend on how long you keep a PC for? if you are like me and upgrade well within a year then stick with the present socket 939 but if this a 3/4 year commitment you may want to wait?

Martin



We like members to GIVE and not just TAKE.
Participate and help others.

 

[cdogg]

Martin,

Yeah, I am in agreement too and your comments are right on. It's just that from an overall perspective, multi-tasking is key even to many avid gamers. I was just pointing out that there are "some" benefits, even if it doesn't directly affect the performance of a game.

As for the 939 and M2 chipsets, we had a recent discussion that covered it in more detail here: thread602-1152863

My take is that since the M2 will likely have a short life span as well (DDR3 is about to be released this year), I wouldn't worry too much about which chipset you start with.

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884