1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Dual-Core VS Equivalent Single Core?

Discussion in 'Overclocking & Cooling' started by Dizman7, Jan 20, 2006.

  1. Dizman7 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Messages:
    67 (0.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    I was wonder what some of your guys take on this was. I've looked up some info on both and I can't really decide which is best for me. Feel free to give you input or let me know if I got any of this wrong.

    I use my computer for mostly games (about 70-80% of the time). Last game I beat was FEAR and Quake4 before that and I play Battlefield2 on and off for weeks at a time, oh and I play this little game that probably none of you have heard of. . . .World of Warcraft :p hehe.

    Other things I do regularly are music, various web applications/downloads (IE large demo files), CD-Burning (though not that often), have a DVD burner but only burned one DVD, and making ISO files off of, well never you mind of what ;) hehe

    I'm looking at either a 3800+ dual core or a 4000+ san diego core single, I know these are equivalent but you know what I mean and the single is only bout $12 more than the dual) The following is some of the stuff I've gathered.

    I've heard dual-cores are slower in single applications than there single core brothers. So running one just to do games it would get slightly lower frame rates and performance. But I've also read that they are great at running more than application, currently I'm running as I type this, Norton 06 (I know it's a system hog but I had a virus rape my computer hardcore before), AIM, 3 IE windows, MSWord2003, Windowblinds, wireless network software, and I know there is a bunch of X-Fi software running in the background too. So I would think that using a dual core for that and running a game I would get much better performance than a single. Last I've heard the Manchester core overclocks like crazy and that I could easily get 4400+ speeds out of it which i like to overclock, I do plan on getting a Zalman CNPS9500 for either that I get, so getting the most I can on reasonable temps is good.

    On the single core side I've read that the San Diego cores are the best. I forget exactly/completely why (feel free to help me out), but I think had to do with the bigger cache and clock speeds? And as I said before I've heard they are better for single applications like running games or benchmarking with 3DMark (I love that program! though I never get any outstanding scores). I saw on tomshardware.com where they compared many different processors against each other and the san diegos were always towards the top (granted the FX ones were at the very top) and the duals were usually in the middle/lower portion and that the dual cores were always much much lower than the same speed rated single cores (like X2 3800+ VS normal 64 3800+). In that regards it makes me think a 4000+ san diego might be good for me?

    what are your thoughts on this? Any people that had dual cores what do you think compare to singles you use to have or use?
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  2. trog100

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2005
    Messages:
    5,806 (1.34/day)
    Thanks Received:
    761
    the world is going dual core.. at the moment there is nothing much to gain from it.. but for the future who knows..????

    the 4000+ san diego (2.4) is the same as the 3700+ san diego (2.2).. which is pretty much the same as the FX 57 san diego (2.8) except for the prices..

    there is a dual 4400+ san diego (2.2) which in essence is two 3700+ san diegos side by side.. i dont think there is slower cheaper one thow..

    i would lay money on it that the dual 4400+ san diego would clock at least as fast as the current dual flagship chip the FX 60 as it comes out of the box

    i have just bought a 3700+ san diego it runs nicely at 2.9 gig at 1.5 core voltage with the zalman cooling it.. mostly it runs slower cos i dont really need a 2.9 gig cpu.. i run it at 2750 on default voltages for gaming.. in windows it runs at 2.4 gig just for browsing and stuff..

    just for interest i genuinly cant tell the bloody difference whether the cpu is at 2.2 or 2.9 when gaming.. in fact unless i run a benchmark i cant tell any difference period..

    most folks would say go dual core.. as yet i aint so sure.. a 3700 san diego clocked to 2.8 gig is hard to beat for the money


    but for gaming.. its all down to the grfx card.. cpus dont make as much difference as most folks think.. save money on your cpu and spend it on your grfx card.

    or even better still dual grfx cards.. now two of them will make a noticable difference.. he he

    trog
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  3. Dizman7 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Messages:
    67 (0.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    Actually the 4400+ dual core is a Toledo core as is the FX60. Yeah there is a 3800+ and 4200+ dual cores too. Plus the 4400+ X2 is $175 more than the 3800+ X2 I was looking at and $163 more than the 4000+

    I am decided on a 7800GT and SLI mobo (will got another GT a bit later). The 7800GT is a lot cheaper than the GTX and the only downside is 4 less pixel pipelines but it overclocks well (and I have a Zalman VF700-Cu LED for it :D )

    But thanks, I was leaning dual core now I'm in the middle again I think :confused:
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  4. trog100

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2005
    Messages:
    5,806 (1.34/day)
    Thanks Received:
    761
    these guys have some dual 4400 san diegos in some rather expensive boxes.. they might be recent and just going out to 0EMs.. but they exist for sure..

    http://www.overclockers.co.uk/acatalog/full_systems.html

    a month ago i didnt even think about dual core.. now i might be hovering just like u.. but i am a bit cynical and know why we have gone dual core.. they need to keep selling us cpus to stay in business and they cant keep ramping up speeds so going (slower) dual core is the only way they can offer us something new.. i am also a bit cynical about software writers going to the trouble to take advantage of em.. they aint exactly known for rushing to make their software go faster.. also about reviewers running several things at once just to show us how good dual core is.. the herd will go dual core cos they will be told to.. we all will in the end but as yet there aint much point.. just like there aint much point in our 64 bit cpus.. he he he

    trog

    ps.. bet u as well that when the new socket AM2 or whatever its called flagship dual core FX62 arrives.. it will be two san diego FX57 chips at 2.8 gig sat side by side.. he he
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2006
    10 Year Member at TPU

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)