Re: Athlon 64 Dual or Single Core ?
- From: ruel24 <NoWay@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 19:32:57 -0400
On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 18:47:19 GMT, jaster <jaster@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Let's look at it this way: Dual core is the future. If it isn't being
>> fully utilized right now, it will be. You should never build your system
>> based on your needs or technology right now, but rather for the future.
>> Your investment will likely take you 4 to 6 years into the future, with
>> possibly an OS upgrade, as well as several software upgrades. The future
>> market belongs to dual core.
>>
>>
>I think it's personal preference. You could build or buy the latest
>cutting edge system but chances are you're going to need to upgrade
>something anyway. Like the poor saps who bought into EIDE, or better
>will you buy a HD-DVD or BluRay DVD player now?
Yes, you do upgrade as time goes by, but chances are, unless you're
one of those that _have_ to stay on the cutting edge, your motherboard
and processor won't get upgraded until you do another build because by
the time it begins to feel slow, AMD or Intel has changed the socket
and obsoleted your processor/motherboard combo.
On top of that, what I said is true. Why build a machine based on the
here and now? Why not spend a reasonable amount of money to build for
your future needs? I'm not talking about spending oodles more money to
get on the bandwagon of a future technology. A 3800+ Athlon 64 X2 is a
very reasonable purchase decision in lieu of a 3800 Athlon 64 single
core. The 3800+ single lists for $282 for one model and $306 for
another, which I couldn't tell the difference except for the model
number, and the dual core X2 lists for$329. Not a lot of dead
presidents to give up for future performance gains.
>> Think of it this way: If you built a system when PCI-express was
>> introduced, and you built with an AGP based board instead, thinking you
>> don't need PCI-express, what happenes now that nVidia and ATi stopped
>> making new AGP boards and your system can't keep up with your newest
>> had-to-have game? That moment is almost here. You would have built a
>> dinosaur from the moment you fired it up for the first time.
>>
>>
>Another example, the OP wants SLI so if he selects nVidia he will need to
>buy 2 of the same 6600 or better cards but if he goes ATI he could buy
>mixed cards X700 or better. Most of the cutting edge of the same relative
>speed isn't significantly faster, ie, dual core vs single core, PCI-E vs
>AGP, SLI vs non-SLI.
I understand that many current software titles aren't written to take
advantage of dual core, but it's coming. Many game programmers have
stated that games can very well take advantage of dual cores and will.
Likewise for many mainstream applications. You can also count on
Windows to better scale for dual cores in the future, making having
multiple applications running at the same time slow the system down a
lot less or not at all.
BTW, Linux already scales _very_well_ for dual cores...
>BTW I have an X800 AGP so at least ATI is making AGP.
Yes, and the 6800 and 6600 series nVidia cards, too, are available for
AGP for the time being. But, 7800 series cards are not, and will not
be available for the AGP slot. Neither are, or will be, the X1800,
X1600, and X1300 series from ATi. They're all PCI-e only. The AGP slot
is all but obsolete.
>> From this point forward, most software that can take advantage of dual
>> cores WILL. Pretty soon, your once screaming single core systems will
>> look like they're driving into the wind with a parachute open.
>
>I don't think game vendors want to write for cutting edge hardware.
>Sure BF2 is demanding, UT runs better the better the platform but software
>vendors sell to the masses and are not exclusive to cutting edge
>technology.
I don't believe so. As soon as a new DirectX is supported, the latest
got-to-have games support them. The demand for processing power is
getting heavier and heavier with games. Next up will be the physics
processing units. Before long, it'll be like playing games with
software emulated 3D if you don't have a physics engine installed.
>You are correct though in 4-5 yrs it may well be but it'll cost double now
>what it will cost 4-5yrs from now.
I'm not, in any way, advocating spending a bundle on building for the
future. I'm a proponent of spending a reasonable amount, though. Like
I pointed out earlier, the 3800+ X2 is barely more expensive than the
3800+ single core. I assumed that the OP was going to spend around
that much, since he asked which processor should he get. Why spend
nearly $300 for a single core, when the market is obviously moving
toward dual core and multi core, and software is undoubtedly being
developed as we speak to take advantage, when a perfectly good dual
core is just a few bucks more? Besides, I read that the 3800+ X2
overclocks extremely well... :o)
.
- References:
- Athlon 64 Dual or Single Core ?
- From: Magnusfarce
- Re: Athlon 64 Dual or Single Core ?
- From: ruel24
- Re: Athlon 64 Dual or Single Core ?
- From: jaster
- Athlon 64 Dual or Single Core ?
- Prev by Date: Re: install 3rd hard-drive with pci ide controller
- Next by Date: Re: Looking for a few good forums
- Previous by thread: Re: Athlon 64 Dual or Single Core ?
- Next by thread: Popular Names for Athlon 64 Processors
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
