Kitire said: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 =/.
PZEROFGH said: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?
Tyler1989 said:Future = better.
Flanker said: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.
Flanker said: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
123Justin said:ur saying the dual core will only be good for 6-8 months?