For everyone that says Dual Cores doesn't mean double the performance...

Lawl, wtf are you talking about, i see many posts that are always saying go core 2 duo..Menelyagor

I have seen many posts with people trashing talking Dual Cores. If you agree with me then cool. When I was recommending a Dual Core to one guy some otherguy was like "What are you? Some Best Buy salesman? Dual Core's aren't even close to being twice as good as a single core with the same rating". That's the kind of people my post is aimed at.

This is directly from system requirements labs self test of my system "CPU SpeedRecommended:3 GHz You Have: 2.13 GHz Performance Rated at 5.75 GHz" I think this ends the debate over single or dual cores. I know most of us see the benefits of Dual Cores but I see so many posts and replies that say Dual Cores are not worth and to just over clock a single core. My E6400 is only $150 at frys.com which ain't that much when it comes to a decent upgrade to boost performance.jmaster299

u dont understand how they work at all

[QUOTE="jmaster299"]This is directly from system requirements labs self test of my system "CPU SpeedRecommended:3 GHz You Have: 2.13 GHz Performance Rated at 5.75 GHz" I think this ends the debate over single or dual cores. I know most of us see the benefits of Dual Cores but I see so many posts and replies that say Dual Cores are not worth and to just over clock a single core. My E6400 is only $150 at frys.com which ain't that much when it comes to a decent upgrade to boost performance.Canine_Knight

u dont understand how they work at all

Ok, explain it then??? Every report and test backs me up, where is your proof?

[QUOTE="Menelyagor"]Lawl, wtf are you talking about, i see many posts that are always saying go core 2 duo..jmaster299

I have seen many posts with people trashing talking Dual Cores. If you agree with me then cool. When I was recommending a Dual Core to one guy some otherguy was like "What are you? Some Best Buy salesman? Dual Core's aren't even close to being twice as good as a single core with the same rating". That's the kind of people my post is aimed at.

There are posts with people who are saying dual core is not worth it? Haven't seen any of them around.

That SLS Test - 2.13 Ghz rated at 5.75Ghz?!

[QUOTE="Canine_Knight"]

[QUOTE="jmaster299"]This is directly from system requirements labs self test of my system "CPU SpeedRecommended:3 GHz You Have: 2.13 GHz Performance Rated at 5.75 GHz" I think this ends the debate over single or dual cores. I know most of us see the benefits of Dual Cores but I see so many posts and replies that say Dual Cores are not worth and to just over clock a single core. My E6400 is only $150 at frys.com which ain't that much when it comes to a decent upgrade to boost performance.jmaster299

u dont understand how they work at all

Ok, explain it then??? Every report and test backs me up, where is your proof?

So do you really think that you have a 5,75Ghz processor when it says on the box of the processor 2.13Ghz?

[QUOTE="Canine_Knight"]

[QUOTE="jmaster299"]This is directly from system requirements labs self test of my system "CPU SpeedRecommended:3 GHz You Have: 2.13 GHz Performance Rated at 5.75 GHz" I think this ends the debate over single or dual cores. I know most of us see the benefits of Dual Cores but I see so many posts and replies that say Dual Cores are not worth and to just over clock a single core. My E6400 is only $150 at frys.com which ain't that much when it comes to a decent upgrade to boost performance.jmaster299

u dont understand how they work at all

Ok, explain it then??? Every report and test backs me up, where is your proof?

Care to share a few?

I have no idea why it says 5.75Ghz, even when 2.13 x 2 doesn't equal 5.75Ghz (if you assume that dual core is two CPUs)

Like Bebi_vegata said, if you really think that a software/program says that you have a 5.75Ghz CPU, then you can't automatically think it's correct - Windows tells me I have a 3.95Ghz computer when I only OCed to 3.16Ghz...

Ok, explain it then??? Every report and test backs me up, where is your proof?jmaster299

I have seen many posts with people trashing talking Dual Cores. If you agree with me then cool. When I was recommending a Dual Core to one guy some otherguy was like "What are you? Some Best Buy salesman? Dual Core's aren't even close to being twice as good as a single core with the same rating". That's the kind of people my post is aimed at.jmaster299

Where is this "double the performance?"
My proof-
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2484&p=10

Whoops...

[QUOTE="jmaster299"]Ok, explain it then??? Every report and test backs me up, where is your proof?LordEC911

I have seen many posts with people trashing talking Dual Cores. If you agree with me then cool. When I was recommending a Dual Core to one guy some otherguy was like "What are you? Some Best Buy salesman? Dual Core's aren't even close to being twice as good as a single core with the same rating". That's the kind of people my post is aimed at.jmaster299

Where is this "double the performance?"
My proof-
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2484&p=10

Whoops...

Those games weren't around when dual core processors were released, thus they aren't multi-threaded and optimised for them(hence they only use one core whose clock speeds are slower than the single core it's being compared to). Go look at a more recent game and them repost those scores :). Oh one more thing I bet with the dual core you could burn cds/play music etc etc all while those games are running. Don't think you can with the single core.

[QUOTE="LordEC911"][QUOTE="jmaster299"]Ok, explain it then??? Every report and test backs me up, where is your proof?jangojay

I have seen many posts with people trashing talking Dual Cores. If you agree with me then cool. When I was recommending a Dual Core to one guy some otherguy was like "What are you? Some Best Buy salesman? Dual Core's aren't even close to being twice as good as a single core with the same rating". That's the kind of people my post is aimed at.jmaster299

Where is this "double the performance?"
My proof-
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2484&p=10

Whoops...

Those games weren't around when dual core processors were released, thus they aren't multi-threaded and optimised for them(hence they only use one core whose clock speeds are slower than the single core it's being compared to). Go look at a more recent game and them repost those scores :). Oh one more thing I bet with the dual core you could burn cds/play music etc etc all while those games are running. Don't think you can with the single core.

Yeah? There aren't even many games (maybe 3-10? Not exactly sure.) that are multithreaded currently. Some games might use a second core for audio or something, but having extra cores really isn't a big benefit right now.. unless you run a lot of background crap.

That being said, there's no point going single-core considering dual-core A64 X2s can be found for as low as $60 and Pentium Dual-cores for around $80.

[QUOTE="LordEC911"][QUOTE="jmaster299"]Ok, explain it then??? Every report and test backs me up, where is your proof?jangojay

I have seen many posts with people trashing talking Dual Cores. If you agree with me then cool. When I was recommending a Dual Core to one guy some otherguy was like "What are you? Some Best Buy salesman? Dual Core's aren't even close to being twice as good as a single core with the same rating". That's the kind of people my post is aimed at.jmaster299

Where is this "double the performance?"
My proof-
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2484&p=10

Whoops...

Those games weren't around when dual core processors were released, thus they aren't multi-threaded and optimised for them(hence they only use one core whose clock speeds are slower than the single core it's being compared to). Go look at a more recent game and them repost those scores :). Oh one more thing I bet with the dual core you could burn cds/play music etc etc all while those games are running. Don't think you can with the single core.

Well here's Oblivion... http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2747&p=3

A recent enough game when dual cores were out.

I can do thing very well with a single core... just like the example you stated, it depends more on the ram then anything else.

Those games weren't around when dual core processors were released, thus they aren't multi-threaded and optimised for them(hence they only use one core whose clock speeds are slower than the single core it's being compared to). Go look at a more recent game and them repost those scores :). Oh one more thing I bet with the dual core you could burn cds/play music etc etc all while those games are running. Don't think you can with the single core. jangojay

You really think I don't know about multithreading?
Take a look at AnandTech's recent quadcore benchmarks...

[QUOTE="jangojay"]Those games weren't around when dual core processors were released, thus they aren't multi-threaded and optimised for them(hence they only use one core whose clock speeds are slower than the single core it's being compared to). Go look at a more recent game and them repost those scores :). Oh one more thing I bet with the dual core you could burn cds/play music etc etc all while those games are running. Don't think you can with the single core. LordEC911

You really think I don't know about multithreading?
Take a look at AnandTech's recent quadcore benchmarks...

Very little is optimised for Dual Cores why would they be more for Quad? Dual Cores obviously don't mean double performance but they do tend to run between 10-20% faster than single cores. Which is warrent enough for buying them.

Very little is optimised for Dual Cores why would they be more for Quad? Dual Cores obviously don't mean double performance but they do tend to run between 10-20% faster than single cores. Which is warrent enough for buying them.jangojay

Even on games that are multithreaded or optimized for dualcores you will see a ~20% MAX performance increase over a single core... I don't think dualcores are only 20% more than single cores...

[QUOTE="jangojay"]Very little is optimised for Dual Cores why would they be more for Quad? Dual Cores obviously don't mean double performance but they do tend to run between 10-20% faster than single cores. Which is warrent enough for buying them.LordEC911

Even on games that are multithreaded or optimized for dualcores you will see a ~20% MAX performance increase over a single core... I don't think dualcores are only 20% more than single cores...

While gaming I meant, but you should put a load on your pc and see what happens. Convert a video on a single core cpu then load up oblivion, do the same on a dual core cpu, Pref both being same brand and see the results for yourself.

I would like to thank everyone for proving my point. Single core and Dual Core owners will fight back and forth to the end of time. "A Single Core overclocked will smoke a Dual Core" yeah, ok....and "There's almost nothing optimized for Dual Cores" just my entire system and every stock dual core system out there is optimized for it and games, like the Orange Box, will continue to come out Optimized for Dual Core and eventually for Quad Core...so how is Single Core Over Clocked better? It's like saying an old standard def big screen is better then a slightly smaller high def tv becausethe standard def hasa bigger screen. My CPU has 2 cores which are rated to process 2.13GHz each so how is that not double? And the 5GHz rating comes from the fact that information can be split between processors for better efficency thus boosting it's rating to that similar of a single core 5GHz CPU. Not every program I run has to be Dual Core optimized, my system can disperse and allocate it's resources over two processors regardless of the program. This is backed up through Microsoft's System Resource Monitor....not the thing in you control panel. It's a separate program that anybody who has link their PC through their 360 for Media Center should be familiar with. When running multiple programs like IE, and WMP and Word all at the same time, one processor isn't stuck doing all the work, it's spread across both processors keeping vital system resources available.jmaster299

I would like to thank everyone for proving my point. Single core and Dual Core owners will fight back and forth to the end of time. "A Single Core overclocked will smoke a Dual Core" yeah, ok....and "There's almost nothing optimized for Dual Cores" just my entire system and every stock dual core system out there is optimized for it and games, like the Orange Box, will continue to come out Optimized for Dual Core and eventually for Quad Core...so how is Single Core Over Clocked better? It's like saying an old standard def big screen is better then a slightly smaller high def tv becausethe standard def hasa bigger screen. My CPU has 2 cores which are rated to process 2.13GHz each so how is that not double? And the 5GHz rating comes from the fact that information can be split between processors for better efficency thus boosting it's rating to that similar of a single core 5GHz CPU. Not every program I run has to be Dual Core optimized, my system can disperse and allocate it's resources over two processors regardless of the program. This is backed up through Microsoft's System Resource Monitor....not the thing in you control panel. It's a separate program that anybody who has link their PC through their 360 for Media Center should be familiar with. When running multiple programs like IE, and WMP and Word all at the same time, one processor isn't stuck doing all the work, it's spread across both processors keeping vital system resources available.jmaster299

So then, show us this 100% performance increasement games or applications?

[QUOTE="jmaster299"]I would like to thank everyone for proving my point. Single core and Dual Core owners will fight back and forth to the end of time. "A Single Core overclocked will smoke a Dual Core" yeah, ok....and "There's almost nothing optimized for Dual Cores" just my entire system and every stock dual core system out there is optimized for it and games, like the Orange Box, will continue to come out Optimized for Dual Core and eventually for Quad Core...so how is Single Core Over Clocked better? It's like saying an old standard def big screen is better then a slightly smaller high def tv becausethe standard def hasa bigger screen. My CPU has 2 cores which are rated to process 2.13GHz each so how is that not double? And the 5GHz rating comes from the fact that information can be split between processors for better efficency thus boosting it's rating to that similar of a single core 5GHz CPU. Not every program I run has to be Dual Core optimized, my system can disperse and allocate it's resources over two processors regardless of the program. This is backed up through Microsoft's System Resource Monitor....not the thing in you control panel. It's a separate program that anybody who has link their PC through their 360 for Media Center should be familiar with. When running multiple programs like IE, and WMP and Word all at the same time, one processor isn't stuck doing all the work, it's spread across both processors keeping vital system resources available.cricketboy2238

I've seen it all before and all you need to do is read the last 3 pages of posts to see what I am talking about. All the single core over clockers like to think Dual Cores only give you a 20% performance boost....well it's two cores that can work in sequence to spread out the load so I don't know where they are getting this 20% nonsense. They try to just compare it to over all game performance but game performance is dependent on more then just your processor(s). They tend to forget about all the stuff that runs in the background that you can't shut off that Dual Cores help take care of. Game play depends on you processor(s), your GPU, your ram, how much junk is on your PC that could slow it down. Never said a Dual Core will double your game play quality/settings just saying it doubles SYSTEM processing power and that it's efficiency allows it to be on par with Single Core Processors of some times double the rating. That's with out overclocking which will reduce the life of the CPU and possible other components like the MOBO.

[QUOTE="jmaster299"]I would like to thank everyone for proving my point. Single core and Dual Core owners will fight back and forth to the end of time. "A Single Core overclocked will smoke a Dual Core" yeah, ok....and "There's almost nothing optimized for Dual Cores" just my entire system and every stock dual core system out there is optimized for it and games, like the Orange Box, will continue to come out Optimized for Dual Core and eventually for Quad Core...so how is Single Core Over Clocked better? It's like saying an old standard def big screen is better then a slightly smaller high def tv becausethe standard def hasa bigger screen. My CPU has 2 cores which are rated to process 2.13GHz each so how is that not double? And the 5GHz rating comes from the fact that information can be split between processors for better efficency thus boosting it's rating to that similar of a single core 5GHz CPU. Not every program I run has to be Dual Core optimized, my system can disperse and allocate it's resources over two processors regardless of the program. This is backed up through Microsoft's System Resource Monitor....not the thing in you control panel. It's a separate program that anybody who has link their PC through their 360 for Media Center should be familiar with. When running multiple programs like IE, and WMP and Word all at the same time, one processor isn't stuck doing all the work, it's spread across both processors keeping vital system resources available.LordEC911

Wow...
You have this magically advance CPU and OS that automatically rewrites program's code making it multithreaded?
Simply amazing...

Ignorance is bliss...

Get yourself a Dual Core system andExtender Resource Monitor and see for yourself. One Core isn't doing all the work for even basic apps...it get's spread out over both in real time. Until then please keep you rude and TOS violating insults to yourself.

I've seen it all before and all you need to do is read the last 3 pages of posts to see what I am talking about. All the single core over clockers like to think Dual Cores only give you a 20% performance boost....well it's two cores that can work in sequence to spread out the load so I don't know where they are getting this 20% nonsense. They try to just compare it to over all game performance but game performance is dependent on more then just your processor(s). They tend to forget about all the stuff that runs in the background that you can't shut off that Dual Cores help take care of. Game play depends on you processor(s), your GPU, your ram, how much junk is on your PC that could slow it down. Never said a Dual Core will double your game play quality/settings just saying it doubles SYSTEM processing power and that it's efficiency allows it to be on par with Single Core Processors of some times double the rating. That's with out overclocking which will reduce the life of the CPU and possible other components like the MOBO.jmaster299

That ~20% MAX performance increase comes from the words of people MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more knowledgeable then yourself... Valve tried out quite a few different types of multithreading and found out that 20% number.
Look at the performance increase the dualcore optimizer for Quake4 added... it was ~20%.

[QUOTE="jmaster299"]I've seen it all before and all you need to do is read the last 3 pages of posts to see what I am talking about. All the single core over clockers like to think Dual Cores only give you a 20% performance boost....well it's two cores that can work in sequence to spread out the load so I don't know where they are getting this 20% nonsense. They try to just compare it to over all game performance but game performance is dependent on more then just your processor(s). They tend to forget about all the stuff that runs in the background that you can't shut off that Dual Cores help take care of. Game play depends on you processor(s), your GPU, your ram, how much junk is on your PC that could slow it down. Never said a Dual Core will double your game play quality/settings just saying it doubles SYSTEM processing power and that it's efficiency allows it to be on par with Single Core Processors of some times double the rating. That's with out overclocking which will reduce the life of the CPU and possible other components like the MOBO.LordEC911

That ~20% MAX performance increase comes from the words of people MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more knowledgeable then yourself... Valve tried out quite a few different types of multithreading and found out that 20% number.
Look at the performance increase the dualcore optimizer for Quake4 added... it was ~20%.

Again, 20% in game because your Processor is only one piece in a very large puzzle....i'm talking about total system performance and resources.

[QUOTE="LordEC911"]

[QUOTE="jmaster299"]I would like to thank everyone for proving my point. Single core and Dual Core owners will fight back and forth to the end of time. "A Single Core overclocked will smoke a Dual Core" yeah, ok....and "There's almost nothing optimized for Dual Cores" just my entire system and every stock dual core system out there is optimized for it and games, like the Orange Box, will continue to come out Optimized for Dual Core and eventually for Quad Core...so how is Single Core Over Clocked better? It's like saying an old standard def big screen is better then a slightly smaller high def tv becausethe standard def hasa bigger screen. My CPU has 2 cores which are rated to process 2.13GHz each so how is that not double? And the 5GHz rating comes from the fact that information can be split between processors for better efficency thus boosting it's rating to that similar of a single core 5GHz CPU. Not every program I run has to be Dual Core optimized, my system can disperse and allocate it's resources over two processors regardless of the program. This is backed up through Microsoft's System Resource Monitor....not the thing in you control panel. It's a separate program that anybody who has link their PC through their 360 for Media Center should be familiar with. When running multiple programs like IE, and WMP and Word all at the same time, one processor isn't stuck doing all the work, it's spread across both processors keeping vital system resources available.jmaster299

Wow...
You have this magically advance CPU and OS that automatically rewrites program's code making it multithreaded?
Simply amazing...

Ignorance is bliss...

Get yourself a Dual Core system andExtender Resource Monitor and see for yourself. One Core isn't doing all the work for even basic apps...it get's spread out over both in real time. Until then please keep you rude and TOS violating insults to yourself.

Look buddy you the one posting here without any evidence or proof of what your saying, while we have benchmarks that shows us the gain.

Again, 20% in game because your Processor is only one piece in a very large puzzle....i'm talking about total system performance and resources.jmaster299

Wow...

Please go research the topic and comeback.
Read these articles and the thread, you will learn alot.
If that thread is too long just read T Rush's posts.

[QUOTE="jmaster299"][QUOTE="LordEC911"]

[QUOTE="jmaster299"]I would like to thank everyone for proving my point. Single core and Dual Core owners will fight back and forth to the end of time. "A Single Core overclocked will smoke a Dual Core" yeah, ok....and "There's almost nothing optimized for Dual Cores" just my entire system and every stock dual core system out there is optimized for it and games, like the Orange Box, will continue to come out Optimized for Dual Core and eventually for Quad Core...so how is Single Core Over Clocked better? It's like saying an old standard def big screen is better then a slightly smaller high def tv becausethe standard def hasa bigger screen. My CPU has 2 cores which are rated to process 2.13GHz each so how is that not double? And the 5GHz rating comes from the fact that information can be split between processors for better efficency thus boosting it's rating to that similar of a single core 5GHz CPU. Not every program I run has to be Dual Core optimized, my system can disperse and allocate it's resources over two processors regardless of the program. This is backed up through Microsoft's System Resource Monitor....not the thing in you control panel. It's a separate program that anybody who has link their PC through their 360 for Media Center should be familiar with. When running multiple programs like IE, and WMP and Word all at the same time, one processor isn't stuck doing all the work, it's spread across both processors keeping vital system resources available.Bebi_vegeta

Wow...
You have this magically advance CPU and OS that automatically rewrites program's code making it multithreaded?
Simply amazing...

Ignorance is bliss...

Get yourself a Dual Core system andExtender Resource Monitor and see for yourself. One Core isn't doing all the work for even basic apps...it get's spread out over both in real time. Until then please keep you rude and TOS violating insults to yourself.

Look buddy you the one posting here without any evidence or proof of what your saying, while we have benchmarks that shows us the gain.

You all keep just talking about game performance...yes your little research shows a 20% boost in game performance....I'm talk about System performance and I got the proof right in front of me as Extender Resource Monitor shows both CPU's running all the time no matter what program is running or if it is hyper threaded....both CPU's run in real time at all times for all apps. I'm sorry that you don't know what you are talking about...try actually reading up on what I am talking about and not just game benchmarks.

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="jmaster299"][QUOTE="LordEC911"]

[QUOTE="jmaster299"]I would like to thank everyone for proving my point. Single core and Dual Core owners will fight back and forth to the end of time. "A Single Core overclocked will smoke a Dual Core" yeah, ok....and "There's almost nothing optimized for Dual Cores" just my entire system and every stock dual core system out there is optimized for it and games, like the Orange Box, will continue to come out Optimized for Dual Core and eventually for Quad Core...so how is Single Core Over Clocked better? It's like saying an old standard def big screen is better then a slightly smaller high def tv becausethe standard def hasa bigger screen. My CPU has 2 cores which are rated to process 2.13GHz each so how is that not double? And the 5GHz rating comes from the fact that information can be split between processors for better efficency thus boosting it's rating to that similar of a single core 5GHz CPU. Not every program I run has to be Dual Core optimized, my system can disperse and allocate it's resources over two processors regardless of the program. This is backed up through Microsoft's System Resource Monitor....not the thing in you control panel. It's a separate program that anybody who has link their PC through their 360 for Media Center should be familiar with. When running multiple programs like IE, and WMP and Word all at the same time, one processor isn't stuck doing all the work, it's spread across both processors keeping vital system resources available.jmaster299

Wow...
You have this magically advance CPU and OS that automatically rewrites program's code making it multithreaded?
Simply amazing...

Ignorance is bliss...

Get yourself a Dual Core system andExtender Resource Monitor and see for yourself. One Core isn't doing all the work for even basic apps...it get's spread out over both in real time. Until then please keep you rude and TOS violating insults to yourself.

Look buddy you the one posting here without any evidence or proof of what your saying, while we have benchmarks that shows us the gain.

You all keep just talking about game performance...yes your little research shows a 20% boost in game performance....I'm talk about System performance and I got the proof right in front of me as Extender Resource Monitor shows both CPU's running all the time no matter what program is running or if it is hyper threaded....both CPU's run in real time at all times for all apps. I'm sorry that you don't know what you are talking about...try actually reading up on what I am talking about and not just game benchmarks.

Wow... whatever makes you feel better...

Even when testing application you wont get a 100% or even 50%.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=2963&p=5

[QUOTE="cricketboy2238"][QUOTE="jmaster299"]I would like to thank everyone for proving my point. Single core and Dual Core owners will fight back and forth to the end of time. "A Single Core overclocked will smoke a Dual Core" yeah, ok....and "There's almost nothing optimized for Dual Cores" just my entire system and every stock dual core system out there is optimized for it and games, like the Orange Box, will continue to come out Optimized for Dual Core and eventually for Quad Core...so how is Single Core Over Clocked better? It's like saying an old standard def big screen is better then a slightly smaller high def tv becausethe standard def hasa bigger screen. My CPU has 2 cores which are rated to process 2.13GHz each so how is that not double? And the 5GHz rating comes from the fact that information can be split between processors for better efficency thus boosting it's rating to that similar of a single core 5GHz CPU. Not every program I run has to be Dual Core optimized, my system can disperse and allocate it's resources over two processors regardless of the program. This is backed up through Microsoft's System Resource Monitor....not the thing in you control panel. It's a separate program that anybody who has link their PC through their 360 for Media Center should be familiar with. When running multiple programs like IE, and WMP and Word all at the same time, one processor isn't stuck doing all the work, it's spread across both processors keeping vital system resources available.jmaster299

I've seen it all before and all you need to do is read the last 3 pages of posts to see what I am talking about. All the single core over clockers like to think Dual Cores only give you a 20% performance boost....well it's two cores that can work in sequence to spread out the load so I don't know where they are getting this 20% nonsense. They try to just compare it to over all game performance but game performance is dependent on more then just your processor(s). They tend to forget about all the stuff that runs in the background that you can't shut off that Dual Cores help take care of. Game play depends on you processor(s), your GPU, your ram, how much junk is on your PC that could slow it down. Never said a Dual Core will double your game play quality/settings just saying it doubles SYSTEM processing power and that it's efficiency allows it to be on par with Single Core Processors of some times double the rating. That's with out overclocking which will reduce the life of the CPU and possible other components like the MOBO.

Firstly and foremost, there are benchmarks disproving the real advantages of dual-core in non-multithreaded applications like games. The amount of background processes are better sped up by more RAM, and are insubstantial enough in the first place to create little impact on the overall performance on the system.

Secondly, what games are currently optimized for multi-core CPUs are minimally optimized. Writing code from the ground up multithreaded is a big task istelf, however taking code that already exists and multithreading it yields small performance gains at best. When applications are written to be more parallel than they already are, you'll see 70-80% performance boosts with dual-core, naturally. However, at the current time, all multithreaded games currently out on the market are multithreaded after the fact. Programmers can try their best to take already existing code and try to outsource subsystems in the code to other cores, but to the extent they can do this and the effectiveness of this is fair at best. It's simply way too costly to rewrite an entire game engine from the ground up to use multiple cores.

The last point I would like to make is that games aren't CPU limited as it is, anyway. When building a game machine, you want to to support your video card with enough RAM and CPU power to keep the GPU fed, essentially making it the bottleneck of the system. We have yet to see a generation of GPUs that significantly out-muscle the fastest CPUs on the market. High end mathematical applications on the scientific development and research level will take advantage of multiple cores, but this has been around for a long time, running on multi-processor Unix workstations from the likes of Sun and IBM. However, I'm willing to bet the most you demand out of your computer is gaming, which at the moment is GPU limited. Single-cores are more than ample enough for basic computer use. Once programmers see more incentive to multithread their applications, you better believe they will. The only multithreaded applications we'll see any time soon are games, but they're all going to be GPU limited anyway.Crysis would be a prime example. We're quite certain at this point that few gaming machines right now will be able to run this game at the highest graphical settings.

You all keep just talking about game performance...yes your little research shows a 20% boost in game performance....I'm talk about System performance and I got the proof right in front of me as Extender Resource Monitor shows both CPU's running all the time no matter what program is running or if it is hyper threaded....both CPU's run in real time at all times for all apps. I'm sorry that you don't know what you are talking about...try actually reading up on what I am talking about and not just game benchmarks.jmaster299

Then give us links, show us screen shots, show us benchmarks...
You are NOT doing anything but BSing right now without any proof.

And to end on a light note. The wheel's turning, but the hamster is definently dead.

Infinite-Zr0

LOL, that was harsh...

Classic case of delusional denial

TC, you need to give us hard proof. You are just making claims and that won't get you anywhere.
I have a feeling you probably aren't in high school cuz it seems like you haven't taken the standard debate c|ass yet.

The thing about younger kids is that they often think they know everything with minimal information, and they end up only having a piece of the puzzle.

Also I'd suggest you split up your long posts so it becomes easier to read.
You're writing sty|e also shows you're youth(for lack of a better word atm)

And to end on a light note. The wheel's turning, but the hamster is definently dead.

Infinite-Zr0

I'm not bashing him for being a kid, I'm just pointing out that he has far less experience and knowledge than his elders.
I really don't see anything in my post that would be bashing him. Critising maybe, but bashing no.

Also taking a debate c|ass at least gives you the fundamentals of debating. What TC is doing is just primitave argueing.
I never said he HAD to be good at debating, I said he had to bring up valid points and back them up, which is one of the main focuses of debate. You even go over that in underc|ass English.

The last line in my post I'd say to anyone despite their age.

But I guess you do prove your point by not having very good reading comprehension. jk lol

I'm not bashing him for being a kid, I'm just pointing out that he has far less experience and knowledge than his elders.
I really don't see anything in my post that would be bashing him. Critising maybe, but bashing no.

Also taking a debate c|ass at least gives you the fundamentals of debating. What TC is doing is just primitave argueing.
I never said he HAD to be good at debating, I said he had to bring up valid points and back them up, which is one of the main focuses of debate. You even go over that in underc|ass English.

The last line in my post I'd say to anyone despite their age.

But I guess you do prove your point by not having very good reading comprehension. jk lol

Infinite-Zr0

The overhead involved with allocating, synchronizing, and tracking multiple threads, as well as the sharing of resources, eliminates the possibility of seeing a doubling of performance using dual-core or even dual processors.

Dual-core processors can increase performance, sometimes significantly. The increase in performance will never amount to twice that of an equivalent single-core processor, though, due to the increase in operating complexity.

[QUOTE="Menelyagor"]Lawl, wtf are you talking about, i see many posts that are always saying go core 2 duo..jmaster299

I have seen many posts with people trashing talking Dual Cores. If you agree with me then cool. When I was recommending a Dual Core to one guy some otherguy was like "What are you? Some Best Buy salesman? Dual Core's aren't even close to being twice as good as a single core with the same rating". That's the kind of people my post is aimed at.

I've been on here for over a year now and I don't remember anyone saying single cores are better than dual core

:lol: at TC. Go do more research kid and not simply just based on your own assumptions.

This thread is sad and pathetic, both from the topic creator's lack of how dual cores work and those who accuse him.

I find it funny that only a handful of people on this forum know the workings of PC hardware in such matters such as:
- The effect of multi-core CPUs
- The relationship between hardware and software
- The trade off between RAM speed and RAM latency
- The makings of a good PSU
- The effect of memory bus width and memory clock speed on GPUs.
- The basic parts of a CPU and GPU (e.g. ALU's, cache, stream processors, texture units, ROP's)
...the list goes on...

Dual cores are superior to single cores. Period. No, it doesn't just increase your performance two fold, that depends on the software written. But at the very least, a dual core won't get bogged down while running games when a background program starts running (e.g. a virus scan), unlike a single core that must handle all programs in a single thread.

Your intention was good, TC, but you lack deeper understanding of the topic. Linking a site for casual PC gamers as a source for an arguement (about the advantages of dual core) is simply not good enough.

No one can dispute multiple cores is the way to go these days, but it does not double or quadruple your processing power.vfibsux

Actually, it really is double or quadruple the theoretical processing power - you really are getting the equivalent of twice the number of executable clock ticks. The reason you can never get say twice the performance on dual core comparted to single core is that it is impossible to write a single application that can utilize the clock cycles on each core at 100% without waste. What I mean in waste is clock cycles used up for thread synchronization (i.e. signalling the other thread, sharing information between threads, resolving critical sections, etc).

Multi-threaded development is not a trivial problem space and not everything can be multi-threaded. Problemsbenefit with varying degrees when multi-threaded and in some cases there can be negative impacts torunning something in a separate thread. In order to get perfect 100% utilization of each thread, the problem needs to not have to worry about order of execution nor does it need to worry about the results coming from the other threads. Which is, impossible.