Dual vs. Single Question

[Flanker]

Why thank you Apokalipse;

2843 vs 4030.

Much higher than the 30% I said.

hmm didnt look at it that way. the top video card out at the time bottlenecking the test? well still it doesnt matter wether u have a amd 3000 or amd fx-60 they will run about the same.

EVERY videocard bottlenecks, whether its 30FPS, 80FPS, or 200FPS.

And pretty pathetic for your reasoning there. You posted your own benchmark, and now "it doesn't matter anyway?" Pathetic, learn to defend your arguments.

 

[sickness]

I was taking a look at that Tom's Hardware Guide CPU Charts 2005/2006 and in every game test they had the 3700 beat the X2 4400, but it didn't seem to beat it by much. I just don't understand how that's possible. Of course the X2 blows by the 3700+ in tasks like encoding, and multitasking and such.

 

[Nitestick]

well what you have to keep in mind is that the toledo 4400+ is basically 2 san diego cores each at 2.2ghz. so with the game running on one of these cores it is ALMOST the same. i didn't read the rest of the thread but the short answer: if you can live with only a MINOR gaming defecit then the X2 completely owns the 3700+ out of existence.

 

[efd753]

I didnt mean to say the bechmark doesnt matter. i said even though the viedo bottlenecks the test an amd 3000 is about the same to an amd fx-60 in "game". you cant show me any benches were the amd fx-60 destroy amd 3000 in "games." im not talkign about 3dmark or whatever other benchmark out there. im talkign about in games perfomance. it doesnt matter. I woudl rather have an amd 3000 with a 7800gt then an amd 3700 with a 6600 gt or 6800 gs. woudlnt you?

 

[bkolk]

The single core isn't faster. If you compare the two CPUs, the dual core has the advange due to the 2nd core and the larger L1 cache.

The dual core doesnt actually have double the L1 cache, its the same L1 cache but on both cores, so it says its double what it really is on each core. So if a program is running on one core the effective L1 cache will be the same as the 3700 single cores.

Honestly unless you multi task i cant see it worth buying a dual core right now. I dont think you should buy it b/c games will utilize both b/c i bet the difference will be minimal compared to it running on a single core.

 

[Flanker]

Nah, the difference will definately be there. But it depends on if you want to spend $350 on a processor that you won't use for 6-8 months, and while you could spend half that for the same performance during those 6-8 months.

 

[123Justin]

I woudl rather have an amd 3000 with a 7800gt then an amd 3700 with a 6600 gt or 6800 gs. woudlnt you?

thats interesting cuz i was thinking bout getting 3700+ with 6800GS, so i would like to see what you guys have to say about that..

 

[Flanker]

Its true, but only because I would be able to overclock the 3000+ to close to what the 3700+ could overclock to.

If I had to choose strictly between the 3700+ and a 6800GS or a 3000+ and a 7800GT, with NO OVERCLOCKING, then I would go with the 3700+.

Its like comparing a 3.0GHz Pentium 4 to a 3.7GHz Pentium 4. I could overclock the 3.0 to 3.7, but if I couldn't, then I would go with the 3.7GHz one.

 

[bkolk]

Its true, but only because I would be able to overclock the 3000+ to close to what the 3700+ could overclock to.

If I had to choose strictly between the 3700+ and a 6800GS or a 3000+ and a 7800GT, with NO OVERCLOCKING, then I would go with the 3700+.

Its like comparing a 3.0GHz Pentium 4 to a 3.7GHz Pentium 4. I could overclock the 3.0 to 3.7, but if I couldn't, then I would go with the 3.7GHz one.

For games i think having the 3000 + 7800 would give better performance than a 3700 + 6800.

 

[efd753]

are u guys serious? u rather have a 3700 with 6800gs then a 3000 with a 7800gt what are u guys smoking?