Cpu choice

  • Thread starter Thread starter Time Traveler
  • Start date Start date
T

Time Traveler

I am a novice to pc building.What is the benefit of one over the other.I
plan to use an Athlon 3800+but see the Athlon 3800x2 dual core is close
in price.Is this a toss-up and is there any difference in the software
if I went dual core?
 
I am a novice to pc building.What is the benefit of one over the other.I
plan to use an Athlon 3800+but see the Athlon 3800x2 dual core is close
in price.Is this a toss-up and is there any difference in the software
if I went dual core?
Click to expand...

Definite advantage, a dual core is like having two cpu's, they split
the work and allow more to get done in the same amount of time. If
they were close in price, I'd buy the dual.
 
Chris Hill said:
Definite advantage, a dual core is like having two cpu's, they split
the work and allow more to get done in the same amount of time. If
they were close in price, I'd buy the dual.
Click to expand...
Dual needs WinXP or Win2k to give benefit. Is very little advantage with
current games, requires latest Apps to gain performance.
Mike.
 
Michael said:
Dual needs WinXP or Win2k to give benefit. Is very little advantage with
current games, requires latest Apps to gain performance.
Mike.
Click to expand...


But it's just $50 difference so it makes no sense to go with single core.
 
l said:
But it's just $50 difference so it makes no sense to go with single core.
Click to expand...

If you are running applications or an OS that cannot use two
processors, $50 is a complete waste of money.
 
Mxsmanic said:
If you are running applications or an OS that cannot use two
processors, $50 is a complete waste of money.
Click to expand...
The hardware comes first, the software comes afterwards has always been the
rule. The gaming industry has turned that on it's head to a degree, but it
is still generally true. While different for every individual, at some point
the hardware becomes obsolete in terms of running software or the devices
needed for the software. By building up you are trying to postpone that date
by months or even years.
 
BP said:
The hardware comes first, the software comes afterwards has always been the
rule.
Click to expand...

Not for those who want to acquire computers for productive use. First
you decide what you want to do on the computer, then you pick software
that does it, then you buy hardware that will run the software.
While different for every individual, at some point
the hardware becomes obsolete in terms of running software or the devices
needed for the software.
Click to expand...

The hardware never becomes obsolete unless you wish to install
additional hardware or software. Trying to postpone obsolescence is
an exercise in futility and is far less important than getting a
system that runs what you need to run to begin with.
By building up you are trying to postpone that date
by months or even years.
Click to expand...

If you plan to continue using the software you get initially, that
date may be pushed indefinitely into the future no matter what
hardware you buy.
 
Thanks for the help.I found a source where the difference was only 2
bucks.Will check to see if this was a typo mistake,other ads have the 50
dollar difference.I wanted to do my due diligence before getting the
last 2 components.
 
Time Traveler said:
Thanks for the help.I found a source where the difference was only 2
bucks.Will check to see if this was a typo mistake,other ads have the 50
dollar difference.I wanted to do my due diligence before getting the
last 2 components.
Click to expand...
The 3800 X2 is two 3200 CPUs, NOT two 3800s, so the dual is SLOWER in
games than a single core 3800!
Mike.
 
Mxsmanic said:
If you are running applications or an OS that cannot use two
processors, $50 is a complete waste of money.
Click to expand...

Linux, Win XP, OS-X... All modern, mainstream OSes can take advantage of a dual
processor. XP Home can even use the dual-core CPU if not dual sockets!

For gaming, the issue becomes the tradeoff between $$ and raw clock speed. For
most productivity apps, multiple threads make the dual-core option vaible even
at a lower clock speed.
 
John Weiss said:
Linux, Win XP, OS-X... All modern, mainstream OSes can take advantage of a dual
processor. XP Home can even use the dual-core CPU if not dual sockets!
Click to expand...

That doesn't help if you need processor power in a specific
application. If that application cannot run multiple threads, it can
use only one processor, and so the speed at which it runs depends
exclusively on the speed of a single processor; adding more processors
will not improve performance.

Most games (and most other applications) are not written to take
advantage of multiple processors.
For gaming, the issue becomes the tradeoff between $$ and raw clock speed. For
most productivity apps, multiple threads make the dual-core option vaible even
at a lower clock speed.
Click to expand...

Most applications don't run multiple threads. Multithreaded
applications are much more complex than single-threaded applications,
and since few people have multiple processors, it's not usually
cost-effective to write an application for multiple threads.

None of this is news. Multiprocessor systems have been around
practically since computers were invented, and the considerations have
always been the same.
 
Back
Top