azagahl Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 For building a gaming PC, which company's processor currently gives more bang for the buck? AMD or Intel?Do X2 (two-core) CPU's matter for games - aren't most largely implemented in a single thread?BTW I play Morrowind with tons of mods and it cripples my 3 yo AMD 64 3400+ 1GB PC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ripken204 Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 intel c2d all the way. get an e6300 if ur on a budget, or an e6600 if you really want to step it up. but make sure to have 2 gigs of ram and prolly a 7900gt.and you will have to go dual core for eithet amd or intel b/c they both only make dual cores now, single cores are all part of the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puntoMX Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 ... and you will have to go dual core for eithet amd or intel b/c they both only make dual cores now, single cores are all part of the past. What the... did I miss something? Where did you get that from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ripken204 Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 (edited) ya well there is core solo and crap like that, but both companies could care less right now and most ppl who are buying new comps could care less. dual core seems to be the majority of their markets right now. and it really seems to me that they will stop producing single core within a couple of years. dual core isnt that much more than single core anyways, and the performance difference is nice.its just like how u say s939 is dead, when its really not, but in reality it is.... you kinda see what im getting at? Edited January 3, 2007 by ripken204 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azagahl Posted January 3, 2007 Author Share Posted January 3, 2007 (edited) >the performance difference [of dual core over single core] is nice.But dual core can be slower than single core for single-threaded applications. For example:Case 1: X2 4000 CPUCase 2: 3400 CPUFor a multi-threaded app, the first CPU could be 600/3400 = 17% faster than the second CPU.For a single-threaded app, one core on the first CPU will be completely idle. (Or, equivalently, both will be at 50% utilization only.) The second CPU could be (3400-2000)/4000 = 35% faster than the first CPU. This is an overwhelming advantage for the single-core CPU.Maybe things are starting to change now, but games have usually been implemented with a single main thread. Any additional threads perform ancillary work such as sound-processing. These additional threads represent a negligible part of the processing being done (e.g. 1%), and off-loading them to another core doesn't help much.Multi-threaded programming is difficult conceptually and in practice. Acheiving continuous, full use of two cores (or more) is even harder. And, unfortunately, some CS problems just don't submit to parallel processing. Maybe XBOX or PS3 games produce enough revenue that resources can be put into grappling with these issues and making games multi-threaded, but can the same be said of PC games?Does anyone know, if throwing more cores onto CPU allows the memory to arrive at the CPU any faster? I think CPU's spend a lot of time just waiting for memory, and adding more cores won't shorten this waiting at all. The cache sizes and memory bandwidth is more relevant for this issue.Maybe I'm full of crap here, but it seems like the marketing folks at AMD and Intel have taken control and are just pushing X2 and duo-quad-core and imaginary ratings numbers on an unsuspecting public. Edited January 3, 2007 by azagahl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tain Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 its just like how u say s939 is dead, when its really not, but in reality it is.... you kinda see what im getting at?You aren't the only customer in the world. Lots of people want lots of different things. I was shopping for a 939 rig just the other day. I also considered a dual proc (not dual core) rig instead. I found the hardware for both setups easy to find and well supported. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puntoMX Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 "... its just like how u say s939 is dead, when its really not, but in reality it is.... you kinda see what im getting at?..."Yeah, but AMD stopped making S939 (old model, not the AM2 with the same pin count ) for real. AMD also confirmed that, but never did they confirm the single core CPU, neither did iNTEL . azagahl, you are right but for example the Core2Duo that ripken is talking about has a better and faster FPU unit that could benefit for most apps and games. I keep it with single core CPUs my self for the time beeing, and to tell you the truth I like to keep it lowbudged on the CPU with a good VGA card (not the 8800 from nVidia b/c it has to much bugs with the PCI-E and only works well with a better FPU unit like from the Core2Duo) like the 7900 series from nVidia. 2GB of RAM is a "must have" now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ripken204 Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 well u guys do make good points for budget comps, but thats just my opinion. what exactly do you guys call budget tho? i built a rly good c2d comp for 1000$ and a decent one for 700$. the 1000$ comp plays games at full settings... unless by buget you mean <500$? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puntoMX Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 (edited) A Budget system of 700US$ (incl. 19" TFT) with a 200 US$ VGA card so yes, 900US$ systems. And only the Core2Duo with mobo will cost most likely 400 US$ alone... let me check that, brbEDIT: Core2Duo with a 945 based mobo will start around 300 US$ (400 US$ for a 965P based one) alone while I can get a single core AMD with a 550 based mobo for almost half the price. Edited January 3, 2007 by puntoMX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azagahl Posted January 3, 2007 Author Share Posted January 3, 2007 Hmmm...I'm leaning toward an Athlon 64 because they are extremely cheap (e.g. $100). Intel's are much more expensive. I don't want to spend $500 on a CPU that's only slightly faster. Also, it seems that the dual core's are farily expensive and even the best dual cores around can't beat a mediocre single core at single-threaded apps.If I go the Athlon 64 route, is the Socket 939 or AM2 a better choice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 If I wanted advice for a new system, Ripken is the last person on the planet I would ask. Actually, no, I wouldn't ask him at all.Oh my dear Punto? Where art thou Punto? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puntoMX Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 When you buy new RAM then AM2... But what is wrong with the system you have now? It should perform well with 2GB and a 7900GT for example... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puntoMX Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 If I wanted advice for a new system, Ripken is the last person on the planet I would ask. Actually, no, I wouldn't ask him at all.Oh my dear Punto? Where art thou Punto? Well, Ripken isn’t that bad, I have seen worse, and he does well for his age and experience. I’m a hardhead but I know what I’m talking about but some times I’m missing the latest stuff, I’m getting older . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EchoNoise Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 (edited) [deleted] Edited September 29, 2022 by EchoNoise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ripken204 Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 thanks punto, you at least understand that im still learning. i just seem to have my own opinions on stuff that may differ from what many say... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now