anyone still using dual or tri-core cpu.

i would like to know are there many people still using a dual or tri-core cpu.

i think they are outdated by today's standard since there are six or eight core cpu available..

i think quad core is the standard processing cpu.

so if u have a dual core, tri core cpu. what is the reasons u not upgrade or buy a new pc,

is it because of eg, money problem, or dual core is enough for me.

state your reason.

You can't just keep adding cores, it's not that simple, it boils down toarchitecture.

For example, for gaming an i3 2120 dual core is superior than AMD's 8 core CPU.

But to answer your question, yes, dual cores are still seen all over the place and likely will be for another 4 years.

Even in battlefield 3 i3 is equal to AMD's 4 core.

I got a tripple core Athlon @3.3GHz. It's alright for games, but 720p video encodes can take a long time, not to mention 1080p. And yeah the reason I didn't get a quad or a hexa core is the money.

Even in battlefield 3 i3 is equal to AMD's 4 core.

ZombieAkane

the 4100 is AMDs i3 equivalent, so it makes sense they perform the same.

Also, your comment about the i3 being as good as an 8 core bulldozer, are you high?

I have a single core maching funtioning as a router, I also have a dual core machine funtioning as a web server/ media server.

Not everything needs a super expensive CPU.

Yeah, as ZombieAkane pointed out an Intel dual-core can still make more sense than an AMD 4+ core CPU due to SNB's core-for-core performance advantage. The majority of consumer workloads (including most games) are still single- or lightly-threaded, so throwing a bunch of extra, slower cores at the problem isn't going to do you any good. That said you have to figure the next-gen consoles are all going to be quad-cores, so it's hard to say how much longer you'll be able to get away with a dual-core CPU for gaming (or AMD's significantly slower architecture, for that matter).

So obviously if you have the money a quad-core i5 is the way to go, but if your budget has you limited to ~$100 for a CPU you can make an argument either way for an Intel dual-core or AMD 4+ core.

[QUOTE="ZombieAkane"]

Even in battlefield 3 i3 is equal to AMD's 4 core.

NailedGR

the 4100 is AMDs i3 equivalent, so it makes sense they perform the same.

Also, your comment about the i3 being as good as an 8 core bulldozer, are you high?

The article he pulled that from states that in games, the FX-4100 does just as well as the FX 8120. The article directly compares the i3 2100 to the FX 4100 in games using middle of the road GPUs.

These articles are interesting to read in terms of gaming:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-4100-core-i3-2100-gaming-benchmark,3136.html.

If you want video editing, then you are right that the 8 core bulldozer will be better than the i3.

To answer the topic question, I am still using a dual core. I use it because I don't have a real need to upgrade (even though I want to), and not enough money to upgrade for just a 'want.' If I needed to buy a new computer, I'd still be satisfied with an i3 if I couldn't talk my wife into letting me buy an i5. I don't any video editing, and only play a few games here and there, so dual core would probably be fine.

The article he pulled that from states that in games, the FX-4100 does just as well as the FX 8120. The article directly compares the i3 2100 to the FX 4100 in games using middle of the road GPUs.

These articles are interesting to read in terms of gaming:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-4100-core-i3-2100-gaming-benchmark,3136.html.

If you want video editing, then you are right that the 8 core bulldozer will be better than the i3.

To answer the topic question, I am still using a dual core. I use it because I don't have a real need to upgrade (even though I want to), and not enough money to upgrade for just a 'want.' If I needed to buy a new computer, I'd still be satisfied with an i3 if I couldn't talk my wife into letting me buy an i5. I don't any video editing, and only play a few games here and there, so dual core would probably be fine.

ryguy64

I'm with you there. Why waste money if you will not be using it more than you have to?

I mean not everybody around here goes for the best whether they need it or not.

Still using my Phenom 2 x2 550 @ 3.8 GHz.

I haven't upgraded because I'm waiting on upcoming technologies to see what I want to do.

My laptop is a dual-core... does that count :P

Also, your comment about the i3 being as good as an 8 core bulldozer, are you high?

NailedGR

[QUOTE="NailedGR"]

Also, your comment about the i3 being as good as an 8 core bulldozer, are you high?

red12355

Yes because a clean install running just the one game in a test environment on a dual core is the same as real world settings, with many many backround apps going and using cpu cycles.

Even if the game is just using 2 cores, there are a crap load of other things all your other cores can be doing.

Yeah, as ZombieAkane pointed out an Intel dual-core can still make more sense than an AMD 4+ core CPU due to SNB's core-for-core performance advantage. The majority of consumer workloads (including most games) are still single- or lightly-threaded, so throwing a bunch of extra, slower cores at the problem isn't going to do you any good. That said you have to figure the next-gen consoles are all going to be quad-cores, so it's hard to say how much longer you'll be able to get away with a dual-core CPU for gaming (or AMD's significantly slower architecture, for that matter).

So obviously if you have the money a quad-core i5 is the way to go, but if your budget has you limited to ~$100 for a CPU you can make an argument either way for an Intel dual-core or AMD 4+ core.

Slow_Show

[QUOTE="red12355"]

[QUOTE="NailedGR"]

Also, your comment about the i3 being as good as an 8 core bulldozer, are you high?

GummiRaccoon

Yes because a clean install running just the one game in a test environment on a dual core is the same as real world settings, with many many backround apps going and using cpu cycles.

Even if the game is just using 2 cores, there are a crap load of other things all your other cores can be doing.

[QUOTE="red12355"]

[QUOTE="NailedGR"]

Also, your comment about the i3 being as good as an 8 core bulldozer, are you high?

GummiRaccoon

Yes because a clean install running just the one game in a test environment on a dual core is the same as real world settings, with many many backround apps going and using cpu cycles.

Even if the game is just using 2 cores, there are a crap load of other things all your other cores can be doing.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="red12355"] For gaming?

red12355

Yes because a clean install running just the one game in a test environment on a dual core is the same as real world settings, with many many backround apps going and using cpu cycles.

Even if the game is just using 2 cores, there are a crap load of other things all your other cores can be doing.

background programs account for cpu usage on a regular basis. if you dont use steam, dont install the amd/nvidia bloatware or have an anti-virus.. not my problem bro

it also lets you do things like say burn a DVD while your gaming and it is in fact in this environment the idea of multi-core processors emerged. and in this arena the dual-cores just cant compete.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="red12355"] For gaming?

red12355

Yes because a clean install running just the one game in a test environment on a dual core is the same as real world settings, with many many backround apps going and using cpu cycles.

Even if the game is just using 2 cores, there are a crap load of other things all your other cores can be doing.

PS3 media server, virtual box, ubuntu, debian, vent, chrome, youtube, utorrent, wireless utility, steam, ted, word, +whatever game I am playing, which a few times in the past was a few instances of WoW.

[QUOTE="red12355"][QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

Yes because a clean install running just the one game in a test environment on a dual core is the same as real world settings, with many many backround apps going and using cpu cycles.

Even if the game is just using 2 cores, there are a crap load of other things all your other cores can be doing.

ionusX

background programs account for cpu usage on a regular basis. if you dont use steam, dont install the amd/nvidia bloatware or have an anti-virus.. not my problem bro

it also lets you do things like say burn a DVD while your gaming and it is in fact in this environment the idea of multi-core processors emerged. and in this arena the dual-cores just cant compete.

Well I actually have all of those running, just forgot to mention it. Really, all of that stuff doesn't take much resources at all. Also, how often do you burn a DVD while gaming? I'm talking about "real world settings" like gummi mentioned.

[QUOTE="red12355"][QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

Yes because a clean install running just the one game in a test environment on a dual core is the same as real world settings, with many many backround apps going and using cpu cycles.

Even if the game is just using 2 cores, there are a crap load of other things all your other cores can be doing.

GummiRaccoon

PS3 media server, virtual box, ubuntu, debian, vent, chrome, youtube, utorrent, wireless utility, steam, ted, word, +whatever game I am playing, which a few times in the past was a few instances of WoW.

Hm, I guess in the "real world" people run all of that at once while trying to game.

Also, whatever software that GS runs its forums on is horrendously bad.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="red12355"] Dunno, whenever I game I just leave chrome open and maybe itunes... my cpu doesn't go past 5%. What would you really have running while gaming?red12355

PS3 media server, virtual box, ubuntu, debian, vent, chrome, youtube, utorrent, wireless utility, steam, ted, word, +whatever game I am playing, which a few times in the past was a few instances of WoW.

Hm, I guess in the "real world" people run all of that at once while trying to game.

Also, whatever software that GS runs its forums on is horrendously bad.

Yes I make sure that all of these are running every time I wake my computer. :roll:

I have 44 processes running atm.

Only Chrome takes up a lot and that's 250k memory (whatever that even means). Everyting else is like 1k,2k and daemon is 14k.

Still my CPU usage is listed as 1%.

The only things I really have open while gaming is anti virus, chrome with adblock, some odd motherboard thing. That's about it.

I still have my e8400 dual core. I haven't upgraded yet because by doing so I'd need to purchase a new motherboard, new ram, and a new CPU which would cost around $400. Furthermore, I have a modest setup (e8400 paired with a 5770) and even with that I can run the majority of games at max settings or close to max settings at 1080p. I don't see any reason to spend more money for marginal graphical updates.

[QUOTE="ionusX"]

[QUOTE="red12355"] Dunno, whenever I game I just leave chrome open and maybe itunes... my cpu doesn't go past 5%. What would you really have running while gaming?red12355

background programs account for cpu usage on a regular basis. if you dont use steam, dont install the amd/nvidia bloatware or have an anti-virus.. not my problem bro

it also lets you do things like say burn a DVD while your gaming and it is in fact in this environment the idea of multi-core processors emerged. and in this arena the dual-cores just cant compete.

Well I actually have all of those running, just forgot to mention it. Really, all of that stuff doesn't take much resources at all. Also, how often do you burn a DVD while gaming? I'm talking about "real world settings" like gummi mentioned.

I'm using a dual core because I was too lazy to change it, and it runs Battlefield 3 on High just fine at my preferred settings with my 460 (50+ FPS).

Most games seem to top out at 3 cores based on that Tom's Hardware Guide article. I have a 2.8ghz Phenom II X3 720BE. I unlocked the 4th core just for the heck of it. Seems okay. I need more cores only for certain tasks outside of gaming.

I could've gone with a quadcore upgrade for my server. BUt, I felt even a dualcore 2.6ghz Celeron E3400 is powerful enough.