single core vs dual core - Page 2 - Techist - Tech Forum

Go Back   Techist - Tech Forum > Computer Hardware > New Systems | Building and Buying
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 01-21-2006, 09:54 PM   #11 (permalink)
Wizard Techie
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,339
Default

And you can only push the speeds of a processor so fast before they break from heat and other issues this is the reason dual core came to be.
__________________

__________________
<form action=\"http://www.srsyo.org/tfsearch.php\" method=\"get\">
<input type=\"text\" name=\"search\"> <input type=\"submit\" name=\"submit\" value=\"Search TF before you post!\"></form>
Vista Discussion | 64 Bit Discussion |Microsoft Homepage | Yo Linux | Paul Thurrott | Fire Fox | Thunder Bird | Image Shack | Photo Bucket | Put File | Anti-Spyware | MS Anti-Spyware | Trillian | Anti-Virus | On Line Virus Scan
Tyler1989 is offline  
Old 01-21-2006, 10:03 PM   #12 (permalink)
Super Techie
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 455
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Kitire
Yeah, but what if the newer games that utilize dual cores suck... and i want to play CSS or BF2? . I know for a fact that Morrowind won't suck and it will use both cores, but it is all singleplayer =/.

yea i was also thinking the same, i really like games like source and bf2 but they dont take advantage of dual core. unless if they make bf3 or half life 3 using dual core then ther will be a good reason to buy dual core.
__________________

123Justin is offline  
Old 01-21-2006, 10:07 PM   #13 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,327
Send a message via AIM to Flanker
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by PZEROFGH
if the 2.2 single core and 2.2 dual core perform around the same, but teh 2.2 dual core will beat it out in everything else other then gaming, then why go for the single core?
Because the 2.2GHz Single core is cheaper than the 2.2GHz Dual core...Duh...
Flanker is offline  
Old 01-21-2006, 10:08 PM   #14 (permalink)
Wizard Techie
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,339
Default

*sigh*

You didn't read the link did you please read it so you know why running dual core will even help with running single threaded games. Also Morrowind has been out for 6 years long before people could even dream about dual. As for newer games utilizing dual cores sucking I'd like to ask you if you would rather sit down and play "jungle" for the NES or "Halo 3" for whatever system it is to be released on. Future = better.
__________________
<form action=\"http://www.srsyo.org/tfsearch.php\" method=\"get\">
<input type=\"text\" name=\"search\"> <input type=\"submit\" name=\"submit\" value=\"Search TF before you post!\"></form>
Vista Discussion | 64 Bit Discussion |Microsoft Homepage | Yo Linux | Paul Thurrott | Fire Fox | Thunder Bird | Image Shack | Photo Bucket | Put File | Anti-Spyware | MS Anti-Spyware | Trillian | Anti-Virus | On Line Virus Scan
Tyler1989 is offline  
Old 01-21-2006, 10:11 PM   #15 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 969
Default

Well... Valve is crazy. So they might update the Source engine to run with dual core systems. They're like the #1 innovative gaming company right now because they are involved in so many new technologies. They are also the flag company for HDR. So if it's possible, then I don't see why they won't do it. They made HL2 and CSS 64-bit recently.
__________________
<br><br><font color=\"black\"><b>There's No Place Like </b></font><font color=\"red\"><b>127.0.0.1</b></font><br>
AnthraX is offline  
Old 01-21-2006, 10:16 PM   #16 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,327
Send a message via AIM to Flanker
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Tyler1989
Future = better.
Thats what they said about the Netburst architecture and look where that got em.

No no, Dual Core is definately better than single core, especially if you're comparing the same speed (in single-threaded processes, core-core latency still gives the single core the edge). But its also definately pricier than a single-core. The cheapest Dual Core out right now is $321. A person on a $700 budget won't be going for a Dual Core. A comparable single core on the other hand is $160, half the price.

For something that won't help you for another 6-8 months, its hardly worth twice the price.

EDIT: My 2000th post
Flanker is offline  
Old 01-21-2006, 10:18 PM   #17 (permalink)
Wizard Techie
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,339
Default

Flanker you "forgot" to mention processor affinity which eliminates the latency and even lightens the load for the other core making it faster.
__________________
<form action=\"http://www.srsyo.org/tfsearch.php\" method=\"get\">
<input type=\"text\" name=\"search\"> <input type=\"submit\" name=\"submit\" value=\"Search TF before you post!\"></form>
Vista Discussion | 64 Bit Discussion |Microsoft Homepage | Yo Linux | Paul Thurrott | Fire Fox | Thunder Bird | Image Shack | Photo Bucket | Put File | Anti-Spyware | MS Anti-Spyware | Trillian | Anti-Virus | On Line Virus Scan
Tyler1989 is offline  
Old 01-21-2006, 10:23 PM   #18 (permalink)
Super Techie
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 455
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Flanker
Thats what they said about the Netburst architecture and look where that got em.

No no, Dual Core is definately better than single core, especially if you're comparing the same speed (in single-threaded processes, core-core latency still gives the single core the edge). But its also definately pricier than a single-core. The cheapest Dual Core out right now is $321. A person on a $700 budget won't be going for a Dual Core. A comparable single core on the other hand is $160, half the price.

For something that won't help you for another 6-8 months, its hardly worth twice the price.
ur saying the dual core will only be good for 6-8 months?
123Justin is offline  
Old 01-21-2006, 10:24 PM   #19 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,327
Send a message via AIM to Flanker
Default

No, I'm saying that Dual Core will not be good for another 6-8 months. Unless you multitask a lot, then its good now. But there are few to none Dual-threaded programs out there.
Flanker is offline  
Old 01-21-2006, 10:25 PM   #20 (permalink)
Super Techie
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 350
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Flanker
Thats what they said about the Netburst architecture and look where that got em.

No no, Dual Core is definately better than single core, especially if you're comparing the same speed (in single-threaded processes, core-core latency still gives the single core the edge). But its also definately pricier than a single-core. The cheapest Dual Core out right now is $321. A person on a $700 budget won't be going for a Dual Core. A comparable single core on the other hand is $160, half the price.

For something that won't help you for another 6-8 months, its hardly worth twice the price.

EDIT: My 2000th post
Gratz, and i am on a 750$ budget getting the x2 3800 :P.

Quote:
Originally posted by 123Justin
ur saying the dual core will only be good for 6-8 months?
No, he meant it won't give you an advantage for another 6-8 months.. Neanderthal.

--- Oh yeah, and i meant "oblivion", not morrowind :0, always get them mixed up...
__________________

__________________
Kitire is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.