Dual Core Really Nessersary?

demon8991 · 26 Feb 2006 at 10:04

I have not spent any money on my computer for a while now but have noticed that nothing currently is beyond it, gaming wise.

Spec

AMD Barton Xp 3200+
2GB Crucial 3200 Ram
Abit NF7 v2.0 Motherboard
ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition 256mb
460w Enermax Psu
200gb Western Digital 7200rpm 8mb Cache Hard Drives (1 x 120gb, 1 x 80gb)
Sound Blaster Live 5.1 Sound Card
Antec PlusView 1000AMG Case

17" Hyundai Flat Screen
Logitech Z-2200 THX® Certified 2.1 200 Watts Speakers
Logitech MX500
Logitech Internet Keyboard
Icemat 2nd Edition
Pipex 1Mb ADSL

That is the spec of all the computer equipment i use for gaming, i an play all the newest games at full spec at high fps. I was just wondering have games and software hit a limit becuase i cant justify massive amounts of money on a new computer.

Nazbit · 26 Feb 2006 at 10:36

Hi there, no your right dual core isnt needed in gaming, its just that a lot of people get carried away wanting the best, dual core is only really needed for multitasking etc.

Like you say, that machine is fine for gaming, although the cpu could be a bottleneck limiting your ram and your gfx performance. It may begin to struggle in the near future purley because of your cpu.

I know you dont want to invest hudge money in it but If I was you I would look to spend a couple of hundred on a new cpu and mobo. Your machine is fine for the moment, but I would just be looking to future proof it a little bit,
Athlon 64 3500+ Venice, £121.95, Gigabyte K8NSC-939 nF3 250GB (Socket 939) Motherboard £44.95 , Total £196.11

Big improvement, pretty cheap I would say?

Eliminos · 26 Feb 2006 at 10:37

'i can play all the newest games at full spec at high fps'

I somehow doubt that, as I had a very similar rig which struggled with Battlefield 2 on lowest settings. I can't play FEAR at full settings with the specs in my sig at 1280x960.

As for Dual Core, yes, it is very necessary. Games are going to be moving towards multi-threading, as we can see in Quake 4. Having two cores in that significantly increases performance, and I cannot see other games companies stand by when they could increase performance in their games too.

Dual core is absolutely necessary for future proofing your computer. As we can see in the new AM2 processors. AMD have only allocated 2 'gaming' single core processors, and 6 'gaming' dual core processors.

So its not just us that think that, its the companies too.

demon8991 · 26 Feb 2006 at 10:40

I didnt say anything about future proofing i was talking about now.

Dual core has been around a while and no games can boast about utilising dual core properly yet.

As for battlefield 2 thats just unlucky mine runs fine AA 4x etc all texture settings on full etc.

iraiguana · 26 Feb 2006 at 10:53

I would say for gaming no its not important yet, mainly people are getting it now simply to future proof their nice new expensive pc, as vista and future games will allow for its use.

mmj_uk · 26 Feb 2006 at 10:54

demon8991 said:
Dual core has been around a while and no games can boast about utilising dual core properly yet.

Quake 4 has a patch but the difference is pathetic really, I've tested myself!

You only really get any decent performance gain (~20%) by running in super-low resolution but you don't buy a dual core cpu to do that!!

You're probably better off getting a faster single core unless you do heavy multitasking or video editing etc. otherwise just hold off for the Intel Conroe rather than buying a dual core athlon now.

ACESHIGH · 26 Feb 2006 at 11:01

If games are running fine for you then there is no need to upgrade.
But i suspect that pc would struggle with FEAR on high settings.
Soon enough i suspect it will be upgrade time & at that time dual core will be a good option.

clv101 · 26 Feb 2006 at 11:15

iraiguana said:
I would say for gaming no its not important yet, mainly people are getting it now simply to future proof their nice new expensive pc, as vista and future games will allow for its use.

I never really saw the point in future proofing - why not wait until the performance is actually needed and the hardware is cheaper? :confused:

The Running Man · 26 Feb 2006 at 11:16

ACESHIGH said:
If games are running fine for you then there is no need to upgrade.
But i suspect that pc would struggle with FEAR on high settings.

dont get sucked in. 10fps here and there is not worth hundreds of pounds, if u can play smoothly and with good reliability atm.

StarShock · 26 Feb 2006 at 12:24

My old system was definately not up to handeling the latest games... I put a dual core in my new one so I wouldn't have to upgrade for at least a couplw of years, with that in mind yes it is necessary for this system to have dual core

clv101 said:
I never really saw the point in future proofing - why not wait until the performance is actually needed and the hardware is cheaper?

the problem with upgradeing your machine to just above what you need is that you'll have to upgrade every time a new game comes out... the goal posts are constanly moving in this game

Eliminos · 26 Feb 2006 at 12:42

So you can play it at full settings? ... I'm guessing thats 800x600... or more likely 640x480?

demon8991 · 26 Feb 2006 at 14:59

clv101 said:
I never really saw the point in future proofing - why not wait until the performance is actually needed and the hardware is cheaper?

Exactly my philosophy, only upgrade when you really need to and you will save hundreds.

Eliminos said:
So you can play it at full settings? ... I'm guessing thats 800x600... or more likely 640x480?

Ummmmm no, i run them at 1280 x 1024 thankyou, obviously i run fear at less but thats a crap game so i dont play it. HL2 and CSS run on full spec no probs.