Dualcore vs Singlecore for games

Canis Lupus · 03-03-2006 10:49am #1

Am upgrading in the next couple of weeks.

I was initially thinking 64 3700 then I thought I'll throw in an extra few quid and get the x2 3800.

However, in Tomshardware cpu charts the x2 3800 comes in behind the 3700 in games tests. Granted those tests are somewhat old and games are slowly being supplied with dualcore patches but has anyone got any uptodate links for x2core vs singlecore? My pc is purely for gaming and the ability to run multiple apps is not a concern for me.

The way I see it is x2core for the future however the money I would save by buying a 3700 over a x2 3800 would be the difference between a 7800GT and an x1800XT.

I'm a little torn between the decision and advice would be handy.

Cheers,

CL.

Judt · 03-03-2006 12:00pm

Short term, single core provides more for your money simply because most games/apps can't use multiple threads. However this is changing rapidly, and long term dual core is the way to go, as you'll find your processor is what holds you back if you want to upgrade RAM, gfx card and so on in a year or two.

Khannie · 03-03-2006 2:36pm

I agree with what judt said.

I just sold a 3700+ and bought a dual core 3800+ (though I got mine for 250 from the US). There is a slowdown in single-threaded games, but it has much more total processing power available to it than the 3700+ and therefore is much better positioned to play next-gen multi-threaded games.

Also, last night I kicked off a video encode and UT2004 at the same time and there was no impact on my game. Nice!

The 3700+ San Diego is apparantly an excellent overclocker, but the 3800 x2 isn't too shabby either apparantly. Overall, if you're buying for the medium term (i.e. > 9 months), I'd go with the 3800+ x2. If you're happy to upgrade in 6-9 months, I'd go with the 3700+.

Can you post a link to that game test on toms please dog?

astrofool · 03-03-2006 2:52pm

look at it this way, an a64x2 3800+ is equivelent to a 3200+ in single threaded games. Now there's no game around that is unplayable on a 3200+ right now (graphics card permitting of course). The difference between it and a 3700+ is about 10% maybe (200mhz + twice the cache).

Now, dual core is mooted to be able to give up to 40% increase in speed, when done correctly, so u're really swapping about 10% of performance now for a possible ~40% in the future.

Also thats presuming you're cpu limited and not gfx limited (so would want to be running a 7800gtx for it to make that 10% difference).

gamer · 03-03-2006 3:20pm

my advice is get single core 3200 ,you can play any game on the 3200 at high detail with a fast graphics card,in 2 years time if they start making d00m4 on dual core,you can always upgrade system.

Drapper · 03-03-2006 3:32pm

Single Core Bf2 60 - 70 fps
Dual Core Bf2 100 - 200 fps

Canis Lupus · 03-03-2006 4:46pm

Hey Khan the link for THG http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html Basically you can pick two cpus as well to see easily where they come on the massive chart. In games the 3700 wins, in mutli apps the 3800 wipes the floor with the 3700.

I think I'm leaning towards the extra cost of the dualcore tbh. I can live on cornflakes for a while. Along with a 7800gt or an x1800XT I think I'll have a zippy enough system.

I also see reports on the net of dualcore causing problems in games with patches and hotfixes having to be downloaded? Is there any stability problems from people with dualcores in relation to games/general pc usage?

Dualcore vs Singlecore for games

Comments