Upgrade to Dual-core?

[Toastmaster]

I'm upgrading to a new CPU soon, and I'm stuck between an FX-55, or a dual-core 4400 (maybe 4800 if I can find some extra money)
The main processor intensive thing I use the PC for is gaming, and I'd like to future-proof my 939 build for as long as I can before going AM2 and getting new ram.

I've hard both good and bad about using dual-core for gaming, but most games coming out by next year should have optimizations for them. (namely half-life 2 episode 2 and Crysis)

So would it be worth my money to go dual-core on a 939 board, or should I go with the FX until late '07 when I can upgrade to AM2?

[Samuknow]

I would go ahead and go dual. Also look at the OPTYs. OC like mad.

[Daniel ~]

Quake 4 won my heart by asking if I wanted to use duel or single core!

[JimF]

Just been reading a review which had the 3800 beating the FX60 for Doom 3 FPS so I'm not sure you'd get much benefit from that route.

Video encoding looked like an improvement for dual cores - twice as fast but multitasking was only shown as something like a 25% benefit - so I'd be sceptical about whether significant improvements could be leveraged by dual core optimisation for games until someone proved otherwise.

A quick edit as I noticed Daniel had posted - any changes in the FPS for each mode ?

[Toastmaster]

Sounds like dual-core is the way to go then. Even if some current games suffer a tad from it, as long as I don't have to shell out another $300 for a better one within 6 months I'll be happy

And being able to browse the web while virus scanning or defragging is always a plus.

[Daniel ~]

Originally Posted by JimF

Just been reading a review which had the 3800 beating the FX60 for Doom 3 FPS so I'm not sure you'd get much benefit from that route.

Video encoding looked like an improvement for dual cores - twice as fast but multitasking was only shown as something like a 25% benefit - so I'd be sceptical about whether significant improvements could be leveraged by dual core optimisation for games until someone proved otherwise.

A quick edit as I noticed Daniel had posted - any changes in the FPS for each mode ?

Really couldn't say Jim. It's a new system, new G. card, ram as well as MB and Conroe.... But I never get anywhere close to disappointed.":O}

[Daniel ~]

Originally Posted by Toastmaster

Sounds like dual-core is the way to go then. Even if some current games suffer a tad from it, as long as I don't have to shell out another $300 for a better one within 6 months I'll be happy

And being able to browse the web while virus scanning or defragging is always a plus.

Not to mention being able to use anything as soon as the icon shows up when booting...":O}

[Samuknow]

Originally Posted by Daniel ~

Not to mention being able to use anything as soon as the icon shows up when booting...":O}

Now that is a cool thing...

[TrevorS]

Originally Posted by Toastmaster

And being able to browse the web while virus scanning or defragging is always a plus.

You got that right. I can even do something else while rendering, though disc access can still be a bottleneck.

[Daniel ~]

To be honest this chip has given me things I wasn't smart enough to ask for! ":O}

[Samuknow]

we can't let em out think us now......

[keithwalton]

Originally Posted by Daniel ~

To be honest this chip has given be things I wasn't smart enough to ask for! ":O}

Just wait until you use vista, it starts to read your mind and anticipate what you want next

[aghastpumpkin]

You just put a thought into my head of some innocent school kid looking at his computer with his teacher and then IE opening up with pron everywhere.
Eek!

[captinhector]

.... I WANT VISTA!!

Actually I won't have vista for a LONG time ~2yrs unless it come out on msdn-aa. In which I will have it around a week after it comes out.... just depends on ups though.

[Daston]

I had a FX-53 2.4ghz and 1mb catch. When I went for dual core I wanted one that had the same spec so that single threaded games wouldnt suffer. In the end I went for the X2 4400 as it easily overclocks to 2.4ghz+ and was way cheaper than the 4800.

[Daniel ~]

Originally Posted by captinhector

.... I WANT VISTA!!

Actually I won't have vista for a LONG time ~2yrs unless it come out on msdn-aa. In which I will have it around a week after it comes out.... just depends on ups though.

It will be a lot longer than that before I have a mind worth reading! ":O}

[Toastmaster]

Since the thread's still alive, I'll go ahead and update

I still haven't picked anything out yet, but I'm pretty sure I'll be getting the FX-60, as it's the best S939 there is, and it's dual-core also.
Newegg is trying to get rid of it's 939s, so it's really cheap right now ($450), for that price I might as well.
(It was over $1,200 when I built my PC back in Feb. :P)

[curley60]

My game box is a dual core 4400 with 1m cache, (yes, the first generation) and I upgraded from a Athlon 4000 and I haven't noticed a difference in gaming. It is clocked to 2.4 and the interesting thing is that the dual core optimization patch from AMD basically shuts down one core for most games.

Anyhow, for $450.00, I would get a x6300 conroe with a 965 chipset, sell the rest of your rig for money to get really good memory and overclock the snot out of it.

My main box, for daily compting, rendering, vid capture and encoding, is an x6300 conroe clocked to 2.8Ghz. It beats the FX60 in all of the (synthetic) benchmarks and truely is faster in video capture, encoding through premiere and burn to disk with Encore DVD. Something like 20 min faster.

I still game with AMD because I think it is on par with any conroe for single threaded games and if my eye can't tell the difference I ignore the FPS benchmarks.

[aghastpumpkin]

Curley60, one thing I'm curious about, how do you overclock snot?