I will not be upgrading my socket 939 system (see sig) for at least another year apart for my CPU. I only use my PC for gaming I do not multitask. I am seriously considering replacing my 64 3200 for a 64 4000 to last me another year. Whatever CPU I get I will be over clocking by at least 400 MHz.
I have been put off upgrading to dual core in that it will be more expensive and not worth it as I will most likely be undertaking a major upgrade in a year. The way I see it multi core has not brought much improvement to gaming. Even when games have stated that they support dual core the advantages have been minimal. The only reason newer dual core CPU's have improved game performance is due to evolutionary improved design and features and not because there are 2 cores.
Would I be better off with a 64 4000+ (£62) rather than a 64 X2 Dual Core 4200+ (£105) considering the 4000 has a higher clock speed and more cache and is almost half the price?
I do not have much faith that games in the near future will fully optimize dual core.
I have been put off upgrading to dual core in that it will be more expensive and not worth it as I will most likely be undertaking a major upgrade in a year. The way I see it multi core has not brought much improvement to gaming. Even when games have stated that they support dual core the advantages have been minimal. The only reason newer dual core CPU's have improved game performance is due to evolutionary improved design and features and not because there are 2 cores.
Would I be better off with a 64 4000+ (£62) rather than a 64 X2 Dual Core 4200+ (£105) considering the 4000 has a higher clock speed and more cache and is almost half the price?
I do not have much faith that games in the near future will fully optimize dual core.