On 25 Jul 2006 09:53:54 -0700,
wrote:
>
>Andrew MacPherson wrote:
>> () wrote:
>>
>> > have you not seen any games that take advantage of your
>> > dual-core?
>>
>> Not personally, but then there aren't many games which *can* take
>> advantage yet. I don't think there will be many in the near future
>> either, because there's a limit to what you can do out of sequence in a
>> game. Sims like Falcon4, with a campaign engine separated from the main
>> game are the exception.
>>
>> Andrew McP
>>
>> PS I bought the x2 mainly for editing videos, where it can save quite a
>> bit of time in a long render.
>
>Thanks - I think I'll hold off for a bit. Sounds like for gaming it
>makes sense to wait on dual-core until my next complete system upgrade.
> Got a 2GB RAM upgrade instead
.
>
>Kendt
Dual core is a nice idea, but like everything, it takes forever for
the technology to be really useful with the rest of the PC universe.
By the time it's ready for prime time, we'll be using quad core and
dual socket quad core designs. Newer motherboards will obsolete all
these old AMD cpu's. You can bet they'll torpedo anything without
DRM support.
The real power improvement was the basic athlon64 design with the
hypertransport buses and the on chip memory controller. I upgraded
from a 1.8Ghz 2800 to a 2.4Ghz 3400 and the difference was a yawn,
pretty much like the dual cores most of the time. The only real
boost for AMD is overclocking to 2.7 or 2.8Ghz and that's not much
of a rush for the trouble anyway.
Bottom line, all you ever needed was a socket 754 2800 1.8Ghz chip
with a gig of ram and a raptor.