Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD dual core not for gamers

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    AMD dual core not for gamers

    i don't think i've seen this yet but let me know if similar has been posted and i'll remove this

    Source

    Gamers, AMD's upcoming dual-core desktop processor, the Athlon 64 X2, is not for you. What you want is the single-core Athlon 64 FX.

    So the chip maker said today. According to John Harris, AMD's head of marketing in North America, despite the performance benefits that the X2's extra core brings, "the Athlon 64 FX is still the best processor for gaming."
    Harris' reasoning is that until games start being coded for multiple processors, which he reckons won't happen until next year, you'll get better game performance out of the single-core chip.

    Right now, the FX-55 is clocked at 2.6GHz. The top-of-the-range X2 4800+ is only clocked at 2.4GHz. Both chips' cores have 1MB of L2 cache and connect to the system via a single HyperTransport link. If a game is single-threaded, it will at any given time be running on only one of the two available cores. So the FX has that 200MHz advantage.

    That said, the FX is also having to process all the other threads running alongside the single-thread game whereas the X2 can at least run them on its second core, essentially granting the game a better crack of the single-core whip. Is that enough to make up for or even exceed the FX's 200MHz advantage?

    It's going to make for some interesting benchmark tests to see how the two compare.

    In the meantime, the X2 will be pitched at the obligatory "digital media" apps, for which the chip brings a 30-50 per cent performance boost over its single-core brethren, Harris said.

    And for those folk who question the need for this extra performance, well, it'll be there to handle all those anti-malware apps you're forced to run in the background these days to keep your PC safe. Sorry, your Windows PC safe

    #2
    spose this thread is similar, but better because i made it . well it's obvious really, until games are coded for multiple cores, single core games are gonna run better on single cores because of their higher clocks.

    "That said, the FX is also having to process all the other threads running alongside the single-thread game whereas the X2 can at least run them on its second core"

    that bit is interesting though, maybe they will win after all, even at this early stage, but for the small advantage you gain at first will it be worth the big money that you'll have to spend to get one of these cores?

    Comment


      #3
      Do you think they are just saying that so that people don't stop buying the single cores in hopes of buying a dual core? This would leave them with dwindling sales on the single core. You would think that just because there isn't a performance increase now, that buying a dual core is a lot more future proof than buying a single core now.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by Scat
        Do you think they are just saying that so that people don't stop buying the single cores in hopes of buying a dual core? This would leave them with dwindling sales on the single core. You would think that just because there isn't a performance increase now, that buying a dual core is a lot more future proof than buying a single core now.
        good point that

        "According to John Harris, AMD's head of marketing in North America"

        think that point gives it away really :weird:

        EDIT: could you change the thread title so that Dual is spelt right? :noob:

        Comment


          #5
          edited and yes i remember that thread now.
          will the 200mhz difference be that bad for a future proof chip?

          Comment


            #6
            Im working with dual AMD Opteron 64 Type 252 and games runs perfect but now i see the dual core why the games should not work? :bulb: i think games works good on dual processors cuz the dual core is just 2 processors in one.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by pbze

              EDIT: could you change the thread title so that Dual is spelt right? :noob:
              Dont be too hasty, a few more posts like that and "duel" could soon become most appropriate !

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Anoobis
                will the 200mhz difference be that bad for a future proof chip?
                in my opinion no, I'd much rather have a futureproof dual core than a very expensive FX single core

                Originally posted by Chrizz
                Im working with dual AMD Opteron 64 Type 252 and games runs perfect but now i see the dual core why the games should not work? :bulb: i think games works good on dual processors cuz the dual core is just 2 processors in one.
                I should hope games do run well on that opteron . no-one's saying the games don't work, just whether the 200MHz difference between the dual core and the FX would make you go for the not so futureproof FX processor.

                In the new year I'm aiming for a 3500, if the dual cores are a viable option by then I'd be more than tempted to get the dual core equivalent (in terms of clock speeds) then the dual core is the 100% better choice isn't it?

                EDIT:

                Originally posted by Jezza101
                Dont be too hasty, a few more posts like that and "duel" could soon become most appropriate !
                sorry, didn't mean to be 2 controversial

                Comment


                  #9
                  I think they must develope a Gaming Processor for gamers that will support all high engined games etc but everthing must just work like the normal processos but faster! for the games

                  Note: i have aslo heard about a GeForve 7 with Dualcores to i dont know if this is gonna be working perfect but i would see if so hehe

                  Comment


                    #10
                    I belive Envy is being coded for dual cores

                    as far as the 200mhz gap, will you really notice enough of a difference to warrent the cpu not being future proofed?
                    so dual cores= teh win

                    Comment


                      #11
                      He's actually telling the complete truth. Games aren't very multiprocessor enabled at this point, and dual-cores aren't an exception.

                      However, Unreal Engine 3 and ENVY will most likely not continue this trend.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by placebo
                        He's actually telling the complete truth. Games aren't very multiprocessor enabled at this point, and dual-cores aren't an exception.
                        yes but there's only 200MHz difference between the top of the range dual cores and the top of the range single cores

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Just because games aren't specifically designed for dual-core CPUs doesn't mean that they're not for gamers.

                          Gamers tend to be early adopters anyway, so it would make sense that we would get the chips before they're actually necessary.

                          Think about how many people have PCI-express machines now (myself included). There is no game available that's capable of eating all the bandwidth that AGP provided; nonetheless, they announced the Next Big Thing and we all went for it.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by Chrizz
                            I think they must develope a Gaming Processor for gamers that will support all high engined games etc but everthing must just work like the normal processos but faster! for the games
                            Thats got to be the smartest thing I've ever heard on these forums. Server computers have Opterons/Xeons, Desktops have A64s/P4s, why not make a chip just for gaming engines? They would be as powerful if not more powerful than the server processors, and would be optimized for games.

                            On second thought, thats what consoles are for, and I think we can all agree that consoles suck compared to PCs. :up:

                            Comment


                              #15
                              going from single core to dual core is basically a 10% loss in gaming performance...it'll still be one of the fastest processors out there...one of the things that's really interesting about it though is the ability to run multiple programs while playing games with virtually no performance hit...anandtech did a test like that and every other processor took a 50% decrease in performance while the dual cores had virtually unchanged performance...I'm definately going to get one when I need to upgrade my system...

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X