cpu's

Logan1

In Runtime
Messages
265
so i wanted a wide view of peoples opinions and nothing brings it out like a poll. so single vs. dual core? is one better for gaming? how about handling overclocking? any and all input is welcomed.
 
Dual core is basically the next gen of gaming. Single core is starting to get outdated. All new apps will start supporting dual core once vista launches
 
Single cores are better overclockers. But, dual cores are fast running and future proof.
 
what about the reports of one of the dual cores' cores being overrun by games and the other core being almost un-used.
 
That happens in current games. But their are exceptions.. Like F.E.A.R utilizes both cores.

Even Guild Wars uses both cores.

Anyways.. Yeah dude.. Definetly dual core. How much can you spend. Ill direct you to a really nice CPU.
 
i can spend around $200. right now i'm looking at a single core 2.2 Ghz Athlon 64 3500+ venice. i'm also planning on overclocking it. how much of a difference do dual cores actally make? the only dual core i can find in my price range is 2.0 Ghz. is that better than a 2.2? 2.4? 2.8? 3.0? where does it fit in, performance wise?
 
Well tell me exactly what you will mainly use it for. Lots of applications running at once.. or some insane gaming? Light gaming, with backgroud processes? Anything you do, please tell me.. And ill explain why you need what.
 
mainly music, movies, top of the line games, and internet, and downloading. i might do 2-3 at the same time(internet/music/download, game/download, download/movie, etc.) i have this laptop with linux for everything else.

edit: PURE multimedia center
 
Well, a single-core would be okay for what you're doing. But you have major bragging rights with dual-core, and it is future-proofed, so I'd go with that and spend the extra 100 bucks.
 
Back
Top Bottom