is the X2 better for games than a regular Ath 64?
Pages: 1
- Index »
- Games »
- Battlefield Series »
- Battlefield 2 »
- Expansions/Mods »
- Special Forces »
- Athlon X2
i have 4600+ X2 and geforce 7800 GTX. TODAY it is ALMOST as fast as fastest 1 cpu comp. like athlon 64 55-FX, but when windows 64 comes out and games start to support 2 cpu's then u and i can add x2 to cpu speed(almost,or just like that!)!! X2 beats every intel comps and its VERY fast!! but like i said TODAY theres no difference is there 1 or 2 cpu\cpu's... If u wanna think about future buy X2!!
Have a x2 4400+ and a 7800 GTX. I dont know if the x2 is faster than a single core, but the first person woh spawns after a map rotation is always me...
Jesus Christ! Win XP 64bit Edition already supports two CPUs!!! This version is a PROFESSIONAL Version!!!savu wrote:
i have 4600+ X2 and geforce 7800 GTX. TODAY it is ALMOST as fast as fastest 1 cpu comp. like athlon 64 55-FX, but when windows 64 comes out and games start to support 2 cpu's then u and i can add x2 to cpu speed(almost,or just like that!)!! X2 beats every intel comps and its VERY fast!! but like i said TODAY theres no difference is there 1 or 2 cpu\cpu's... If u wanna think about future buy X2!!
And all Pro Versions supports two CPUs!
An AMD X2 CPU has just two cores, they dont count as two CPUs!
What makes a difference is whether the game (none so far? certainly not BF2) and to a lesser extent the video driver (newest ATI supposedly does) supports multiple CPUs. There is no difference to the software whether it is a two core X2 or a dual CPU motherboard.
For the money, unless you do CPU intensive stuff like video processing, you are better off buying a faster single core CPU rather than a dual core at this time. Or get an equivalent core speed CPU and spend the difference on the video card.
$175 vs. $325 for 3200+ vs. X2 3800+, which both run at 2.0 GHz and have 512KB L2 cache.
$201 vs. $400 for the 2.2GHz models.
"Planning for the future" shouldn't include wasting money now on a processor you won't be taking advantage of immediately and which will be significantly less expensive later on.
As for level load times, the biggest speed advantage is from HD speed.
For the money, unless you do CPU intensive stuff like video processing, you are better off buying a faster single core CPU rather than a dual core at this time. Or get an equivalent core speed CPU and spend the difference on the video card.
$175 vs. $325 for 3200+ vs. X2 3800+, which both run at 2.0 GHz and have 512KB L2 cache.
$201 vs. $400 for the 2.2GHz models.
"Planning for the future" shouldn't include wasting money now on a processor you won't be taking advantage of immediately and which will be significantly less expensive later on.
As for level load times, the biggest speed advantage is from HD speed.
Wrong. Lots of good (major branded), fast RAM is what gets you in there first. I am usually first in and have a standard SATA 7,200rpm drive.Pagan[CyC] wrote:
As for level load times, the biggest speed advantage is from HD speed.
As for whether the X2 is worth it for games, as the first guy said it's worth getting if you want to future-proof your rig, but otherwise a good fast single-core CPU will be what you need.
Last edited by AnarkyXtra (2005-12-14 10:31:52)
He's right about the HD speed being the biggest issue. When I bought my pair of WD Raptor HD (10k rpm) I ran a few loading tests with various programs using my old 7200 rpm drive. When I took my HD image and moved it onto my RAID array of the faster rpm drives I saw a significant decrease in load times across the board. (No change in my CPU, RAM, Mobo or Graphics Card)AnarkyXtra wrote:
Wrong. Lots of good (major branded), fast RAM is what gets you in there first. I am usually first in and have a standard SATA 7,200rpm drive.Pagan[CyC] wrote:
As for level load times, the biggest speed advantage is from HD speed.
As for whether the X2 is worth it for games, as the first guy said it's worth getting if you want to future-proof your rig, but otherwise a good fast single-core CPU will be what you need.
You may be one of the first on smaller servers, but I almost never get beat into a map and have even been able to take an opponents only flag on a 16 player map before anyone else even spawns in. Having a 20+ second advantage over those slow processor and HD guys is nice.
I'm first into the larger maps too. Anyway, the whole issue of what factor contributes the most to load times has been discussed in many other threads ad nauseum, and concluded (roughly) with what I said. I can only assume you had a fairly poor drive before moving to the Raptors.
Yes, I forgot about RAM. 2GB is faster to load than 1GB. But for a given amount of RAM, HD speed improvements are very noticeable. Which makes the most difference in load time isn't a matter of opinion. I honestly don't know which makes more difference, but it is measureable if anyone cares enough to do proper benchmarking. But 2GB of RAM does more for game play than a fast hard drive so it is a better place to spend money.
My main goal was to warn people against pissing money away on X2 processors thinking they are worth the money for gaming. It doesn't make sense to shell out for an X2 unless money isn't a concern and you are getting at least an X2 4600+ ($630 just for the CPU) and top end video/HD/RAM. Otherwise you are paying hundreds more for a slower gaming experience now.
As for "future proofing", there is no such thing. AMD is going to a new socket (M2) and switching to DDR2 starting in April. After that it will be going to quad cores. Save your money and buy the best components that benefit you now. Don't spend extra paying a premium for a CPU that will be cheap by the time you are playing a game that takes advantage of it.
My main goal was to warn people against pissing money away on X2 processors thinking they are worth the money for gaming. It doesn't make sense to shell out for an X2 unless money isn't a concern and you are getting at least an X2 4600+ ($630 just for the CPU) and top end video/HD/RAM. Otherwise you are paying hundreds more for a slower gaming experience now.
As for "future proofing", there is no such thing. AMD is going to a new socket (M2) and switching to DDR2 starting in April. After that it will be going to quad cores. Save your money and buy the best components that benefit you now. Don't spend extra paying a premium for a CPU that will be cheap by the time you are playing a game that takes advantage of it.
if u want to wait...then u can wait ur life time(i mean that theres coming new stuff all the time!)!! theres not coming very soon quad cores,but coming... when i bought my piece do u think thath u have not read and search stuff about these things!? but u can ALWAYS wait for better... and for that 1 guy: how many games supports dual core today!?Pagan[CyC] wrote:
Yes, I forgot about RAM. 2GB is faster to load than 1GB. But for a given amount of RAM, HD speed improvements are very noticeable. Which makes the most difference in load time isn't a matter of opinion. I honestly don't know which makes more difference, but it is measureable if anyone cares enough to do proper benchmarking. But 2GB of RAM does more for game play than a fast hard drive so it is a better place to spend money.
My main goal was to warn people against pissing money away on X2 processors thinking they are worth the money for gaming. It doesn't make sense to shell out for an X2 unless money isn't a concern and you are getting at least an X2 4600+ ($630 just for the CPU) and top end video/HD/RAM. Otherwise you are paying hundreds more for a slower gaming experience now.
As for "future proofing", there is no such thing. AMD is going to a new socket (M2) and switching to DDR2 starting in April. After that it will be going to quad cores. Save your money and buy the best components that benefit you now. Don't spend extra paying a premium for a CPU that will be cheap by the time you are playing a game that takes advantage of it.
Last edited by savu (2005-12-19 15:23:05)
You can save a few bucks and get the non-dual-core version now, and should you need it, pop in a dual (quad?) core later on down the line.
The only time you would notice a difference between dual core and single while gaming is if you run a lot of extra stuff in the background, like anti-virus, etc.
The only time you would notice a difference between dual core and single while gaming is if you run a lot of extra stuff in the background, like anti-virus, etc.
Hm, I would wait till AMD brings out the new model (should be in April), then the Dual-Cores get cheaper, too...
Or you do it like me and spend a lot, lot money and build a Dual Opteron System! Its fast as hell, even I use it as a server mostly...
Greetingz
Or you do it like me and spend a lot, lot money and build a Dual Opteron System! Its fast as hell, even I use it as a server mostly...
Greetingz
Just to prove faster isn't always faster, I have an XP 2200+ (1.8ghz), 1gb of RAM, 7200rpm HD, and I am usually the first or second to spawn on my team.
yeah...i put it wrong way "when it comes out"(win 64). but i ment when majority of games start using it!! now its working (DUAL-CORE) very fast but cant get still all of speed from it with games(or can i? yes...very few...or not)... but i know that i dont have to buy new comp. for a long time...Earthquake23 wrote:
Jesus Christ! Win XP 64bit Edition already supports two CPUs!!! This version is a PROFESSIONAL Version!!!savu wrote:
i have 4600+ X2 and geforce 7800 GTX. TODAY it is ALMOST as fast as fastest 1 cpu comp. like athlon 64 55-FX, but when windows 64 comes out and games start to support 2 cpu's then u and i can add x2 to cpu speed(almost,or just like that!)!! X2 beats every intel comps and its VERY fast!! but like i said TODAY theres no difference is there 1 or 2 cpu\cpu's... If u wanna think about future buy X2!!
And all Pro Versions supports two CPUs!
An AMD X2 CPU has just two cores, they dont count as two CPUs!
Pages: 1
- Index »
- Games »
- Battlefield Series »
- Battlefield 2 »
- Expansions/Mods »
- Special Forces »
- Athlon X2