Single vs. Dual

[no leaf clover]

Heres my issue. Ive been working (summer job and currently a paid internship), and decided to get a new computer. I have a budget of $1500 up to 1900$ (tax returns getting me about 400, although I would rather be closer to $1500). I want this computer to be able to last me a decent amount of time, prefferably through college, with minimal upgrades. Heres what my builds looking like so far.
Im looking at the processor that I plan on getting (AMD64 3700+ $233), and am also looking at an Operton 165 ($325). Should I spend the extra hundred and go with the dual core operton? While it runs at 1.8ghz (vs the 3700+ 2.2), I hear it is a breeze to OC. The games Im currently into are WoW, DoD (not source), and I plan to join some friends on DAoC (free servers). Do you guys think I should just plunk down the extra 100 now? Will it be worth it? Any plans on games coming out with dual core support? As always, any comments appreciated.

 

[sickness]

This has been covered a hundred times. I would stick with the 3700. It will play those games just fine, as long as you have a decent video card. I'm not sure how WoW is on a system. I would rather have a single core 2.2GHz than a dual core 1.8GHz.

 

[zerodayATK]

games are being made to support dual core ... if you want an upgrade proof rig .. go for dual if you upgrade in cycles (every 2 years) than go for the single for now ... or you could just wait great stuff is comming out soon YAY MY favorite Number 303 !11 hoot! hoot!

 

[no leaf clover]

well i usually upgrade in cycles, but with college, id like to save as much money as I can, but whats coming out soon?

 

[Trifid]

Go dual cores, Games are already getting support for dual core CPU's. Look at how much difference it makes: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2668&p=8

Even the intel dual cores were beating an FX57!

 

[no leaf clover]

i think i may go dual core, seems like a sensible choice. only wish that the link compared amd 64 single to amd opteron

 

[Flanker]

You don't need those comparisons. What that benchmark says is that, as far as Quake 4 goes, a Athlon 64 X2 3800+ (2.0GHz, Dual Core) or a Opteron 170 (2.0GHz, Dual Core) will beat a Athlon 64 FX-57(2.8GHz, Single Core), or a Opteron 154 (2.8GHz, Single Core). So a 1.8GHz Dual Core will definately beat a 2.2Ghz Single Core.

The problem arises with the timeframe. Quake 4 had to be patched to support Dual Core and NO other games are planning on doing that. As it stands right now, Quake 4 is the ONLY game out there that supports Dual Core processors. Natively Dual Core games aren't coming out for another 6-8 motnhs. So what you have to decide is, do you want to spend $100 more for something that you won't use for over half a year?

My suggestion? Get the 3700+ and upgrade to a X2 when the time arises. You save $100 right now, so put that into a savings account where you add like $30/month so by the time you need a Dual Core processor, you'll be able to get a really good one.

No argument that Dual Core will dominate Dual Core games. But we don't have Dual Core games.

 

[Sarah_J]

I don't think its worth it yet for dual against single, theres not enough payoff for performance over costs.

 

[BennyV04988]

well sarah...welcome to TF anywho, but for that price and the ablity to OC to 2.7GHz for a $320 dc is very nice

 

[molsen]

i think that if you buy a dual core now, by the time more games support dual core, you're processor will be at the bottom of the barrellllll..... my advice is to go with the single core, as gaming performance will be more than adequate with a decent video card. then you'll have saved enough money that in a year you can afford a sick dual core