• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Are you all ignoring me?

Soldato
Joined
23 Nov 2004
Posts
8,024
Location
The Place To Be
I've asked about 15 people who've gone from an Athlon 64 3500+ to an X2 if they noticed a big performance increase, and I haven't had a reply from anyone :D

So. Did you notice a decent increase when going from a 3500 to an X2 4200 (or higher) ?

Cheers
 
Each core functions idependently but you can run more tasks at once without it clogging up.

Put it this way. With a single core processor, I'm running 5 programmes right now. With dual core, 2 could run on one and 3 on the other.

In big single-thread apps (games) it would make little difference but for running several simultaneously it's a noticeable differece.
 
Tommy B said:
So even a 3500 to 3800 X2 would be worth it?

Does the X2 mean it's twice as fast because of the dual cores. Is each core the same speed as the equivalent one core?

x2 doesn't mean it's twice as fast, but it does mean it can do twice as many things at the same speed.

Whenever my 3400+ would start a virus scan or something similar I wouldn't be able to do anything else, as almost all of the processing power was taken up by the virus scan.

On my 4200+ I have 2 cores running at the same speed as the laptop's clawhammer, so if a virus scan starts one core will handle that and the other will still be free with it's full 2.2 speed. I've been playing Oblivion before only to close it after deciding I've had enoguh today to find there's been a full Windows OneCare tuneup running in the background and I haven't noticed it!
 
Cyber-Mav said:
dual core is not twice the speed as single core hence why its not worth bothering with at the moment. next upgrade i go for will be quad core and no less.
You obviously havent used a dual core system / don't multitask your rig then. ;)
Either that or you have a damn sight more patience than me :p
 
Well, Id say if your predominantly a gamer, 2 cores is not worth rushing out to buy now, since not many (if any?) take advantage of the extra processing power...
This should change shortly...once the majority of games start to utilise the extra core, then it will be worth upgrading....
 
I went from a 3700 at 3.1ghz to a 170 at stock and seemed quicker. Now got the 170 at 3ghz and it is quick at that speed but cant out do the 3700 in superpi
 
wilders said:
Well, Id say if your predominantly a gamer, 2 cores is not worth rushing out to buy now, since not many (if any?) take advantage of the extra processing power...
This should change shortly...once the majority of games start to utilise the extra core, then it will be worth upgrading....

It makes more difference at the moment than you'd think... having 1 core to run the game with all it's power and the other to run windows and numerous background programs really speeds things up from having a single core struggling with a game, windows and background programs!
 
Nvidias graphics drivers are dual core enabled for a nice little boost (15% or so?), I think ATI have went the same way.

COD2 had a dual core patch that gave quite a big boost if I remember correctly.

Dual core all the way.

Jokester
 
Then stop panzying around with the 939 girlyness and get yourself over to the 940's :D Real machine have 8 cores! (And while your there, you could always get one of those new gigabyte rigs - 8 gpu cores across 4 16x Pci-e's !) Now that's bling! :eek:
 
Oh back to topic...If your going to get an X2....theres almost no point in getter the 4200 over the 3800...Its 2.2ghz (4200+) as opposed to 2.0ghz (3800+), there really wont be that much difference...but of course if you have the spare cash the 4400+ Is always worth considering :)
 
Back
Top Bottom