single core vs dual core CPU's

[rattler]

A lot of people have switched to dual core from fast single core CPU's. My question is do the dual cores give this flight sim any benefit seeing as their speed is substantually lower than a faster single core. I have read that although you can put lockon on one core of the dual, it will actually use both cores. I personally think for lockon, I see no advantage to dual core. For other applications yes I understand, multitasking, video and audio applications yes by all means dual core is by far the better choice. If you do not do a lot of multitasking and your main objective is flight sims, where would be the advantage.Upgrading soon and I have a 3.6 intel lga775 ht l2 800 fsb. If there is not any significant advantage I would stay with my single core.(few months old). Thanks for any insight. cheers

 

P.S. Yes I know there is a thread about how many use dual core but there are some say yes and some so no. I would like to zero it down more as they do not really explain advantages or disadvantages. Thanks.

[Vekkinho]

3.6 Ghz with a single core is as fast as it gets and that proc would run LOFC as good as any present Dual thing. There's a BIG BUG that won't allow you to set all graphic settings to maximum no matter of you rig and that's poor LO engine optimization.

 

I'm not sure about BS but according to these screenshots and eye candy we would really need some top notch rig to make it playable. So I advise you to hold your horses for another 2 or 3 years and wait for some Quad core processor especially if you purchased that 3.6 recently.

 

That's what I'm gonna do, so perhaps in 2 or 3 years I'll finally play BS with some FPS optimization mods installed.

[qrazi]

The thing is, with the same kind of CPU, you would see very little performance improvement if you would switch to a dual core. In your case you would have to get a Pentium D at 3.6 GHz (non existent afaik).

 

An Athlon64 4000+ is a single core CPU too, and would be noticeable faster then your current P4.

 

But, if you'd go out and buy something new, go for an AMD X2 (>4800+) or Intel Core 2. Both will be faster then your current CPU, wether single threaded or multithreaded applications. The reason for this is that AMD and Intel did't just go dualcore, but they actually improved the architecture. The IPC (instructions per clockcycle) is just so much higher then with the P4.

 

Example: Intel celeron 3.3 GHz is way slower then P4 3.2GHz. Mostly because: slower FSB, less cache, less bandwith of cache. So altough the speed (GHz) is roughly the same, the P4 will be able to handle more instructions per GHz/MHz/clockcycle.

 

Hopefully this gives you the insight you were looking for.

[Vekkinho]

Are U saying that playing LOFC with single core P4 at 2.8ghz gives same preformance as playing LOFC with Dual Core working at 2.8 as well?!

[rattler]

I personally do not think a dual at 2.8 will be better than a single 3.6 P4. I know they are different in architecture but I do think it can perform better than 2.8 dual. Its much faster, its a 600 or 700 series have to look but it is a very good processor. Lockon needs fast processors to take advantage of most of the high settings. I agree for lockon to really bloom we may have to see what the quad offers. Anything else and dual core and good graphics card will do better multitasks. That is the feel I get. Been looking since I posted thread. For lockon ya quad core at least to run everything at max. Hopefully!! Thanks for your imput. Think I have to wait for a while.This is also a fairly new processor. Upgrade from 3.2, got a good deal so I took it. p4 3.6's hard to find.Cheers. Yes it is brand new, never used.

[Kuky]

Get one core 2 duo and try LockOn with it... you WILL see a nice framerate increase... They overclock very nicely as well. If you haven't tried it don't talk about it.

 

I went from P4 3.4 to C2D E6600 and difference is like sky and earth.

[rattler]

"After a few weeks of use I have yet to be really impressed by my x2 3800 (running at 2.4GHz). The only times I see it being used fully are when I'm editing/rendering movies, or when burning DVDs. That's ok, because it was movie work which persuaded me to try a dual core. But in general use I find no noticeable benefits from having a spare core sitting there waiting for something to do.

 

If I was buying again today I'd almost certainly spend the same money on a faster single core CPU (or at least one with a higher multiplier that would overclock more easily). MHz is what matters. If I did more editing I might stick with dual core though, it really does seem to help there, with both cores regularly peaking at 100%.

 

Andrew McP"

 

Go figure. No need to get in a fighting mood. I have read and read and read again the pros and cons of core duo and single. For the average person a high end single gets the job done. Now quad that's a new ball game. I will play that game. Found very positive remarks from people who went quad. Mixed remarks with core duo. Just because I do not run a core duo does not mean I don't know what I am talking about. I've done my homework thank you. So lets keep this civil. Yes your E6600 is a very good cpu. If quads were not around I may have looked at that very one. Right now the 3.6 is doing the job quite nicely, no problems. It suits my needs, may not suit yours or others, no argument there. I buy what will give me what I want. Since quad is out waiting a while for me is the right decision. For others it may not. No problem, people buy what they want or need. Need is my requirement. So until my needs change I will keep my single till it's time to move forward if software dictates, that I must upgrade.

[Kuky]

C2D kick ass of any P4 or AMD at the moment... and its not a contest but a fact.

[graywo1fg]

C2D kick ass of any P4 or AMD at the moment... and its not a contest but a fact.

 

 

that is about as true as anything!!! i switched from a X2 4200+ AMD to a C2D E6600 oced to 3ghtz and AMAZING:thumbup:

[Laud]

I can only reinforce the opinion about dual-cores: Upgraded from an AMD Athlon 3000+ to an AMD 64 X2 6000+ and it gets me really forward!! Much eyecandy and lots of frames! :)

[Vekkinho]

OK let's make this clear!

 

In total Dual Cores run LOFC much better (more FPS) than all yesterdays P4s? Right?

 

Duals allow all Graphic settings in LOFC to be cranked all the way up and FPS still counts better than on P4 with cca "medium" settings?

 

What about multitasking?! Anyone able to run WinAmp in the background without LOFC performance drops?

 

And the most delicate question - Which is better for LOFC/BS, Intel or AMD?!

 

I know that most of my questions seem stupid but investing in a complete new rig (MoBo, Cpu, RAM, GPU, HDD, Tower) is something I can afford maybe every 3 or 4 years so I'd like to get the best I can afford with, let's say 1500 Euro (2000 US$). That's why I'm asking stupidities like this, I'd just want to reduce my chances of making an error during components selection!

[Kuky]

A single core of C2D is quite faster then any P4 even on slower clock.

 

Running LockOn with high visibility and scenery file still gives frame rate in 10's and that's because of the way LockOn is coded... but that is still playable where as with P4 you would get single digits.

 

Dual cores come in handy when you have few applications running at the same time... I can run LockOn with TrackIR, TS/Ventrilo and listen to MP3 on WMP without any difference with LockOn running all on its own.

 

And to your last question... at the moment Intel's CPU are faster then AMD.

[TucksonSonny]

The latest and fastest single core made was the FX-57@2.8Ghz (about old P4@6+Ghz)

No need to turn back on single core anyway because:

Today dual and quad cores have already much better performance on their single core.

And with about the same power consumption or less they multiply the performance with 2x (for dual core) and 4x (for quad core)

Your effective single core cpu performance of the quad core = Quad cpu 3DMARK06 CPU score divided by 4

But indeed Lockon and most other titles today only use ¼ th of the available cpu power!

[rattler]

A single core of C2D is quite faster then any P4 even on slower clock.

 

Running LockOn with high visibility and scenery file still gives frame rate in 10's and that's because of the way LockOn is coded... but that is still playable where as with P4 you would get single digits.

 

Dual cores come in handy when you have few applications running at the same time... I can run LockOn with TrackIR, TS/Ventrilo and listen to MP3 on WMP without any difference with LockOn running all on its own.

 

And to your last question... at the moment Intel's CPU are faster then AMD.

 

I have never run in single digits. Lots of things running in background. Running lofc 1.12a patch. Lowest digits 14, around airport with lots of A/c and added objects with high resolution. I have most of the high res. mods installed. aax6, afx8. This thing on single digits, yes I agree with you, but, it all depends on what equipment you have. Not everyone is the same. I am lucky others may not. This is a one year old system with the new CPU so in another year, maybe 2 at most, I will go quad core. Did you notice I told you that you have a very good CPU. If there were no quads, my upgrade would have been to the exact same CPU you have.I am sure in the future you yourself will go quad core eventually. I am in a position good or bad that I will jump over dual core and straight to quad. Some are in the same boat as me. Depends on when your last upgrade was. Some people can afford to buy the new stuff soon as it comes out, great for them, wish I was one but I am not. Glad you enjoy your dual, I am sure it will meet your expectations for a while. For gammers, our world changes fast. Would you not agree.

[H4rM]

Just to reiterate:

I have an Intel P4 3.2 Ghz single core, and AMD 5000+ X2 dual core and an Intel Core 2 Duo 2.67 Ghz overclocked to 3.60 Ghz. The Core2Duo cpus are a huge improvement over all the others cpus even at the default 2.67Ghz setting. With LockOn, the first thing you will notice is a huge improvement in fps with very high graphic settings ( if you have a well put together system pairing a great motherboard, great cpu and great sli video cards).

 

The Core2Duos is the way to go, even if you see "slower" Ghz speeds.

[Vekkinho]

Well my funds allow something like Intel's E6600 or AMD Athlon64 X2 6000+.

 

So what's better for LOFC (BS)?

 

I wouldn't wanna experiment too much with different CPUs, ain't got that money.

[Pilotasso]

The AMD one heats more, and the E6600 still outperforms it slighly.

[Laud]

Not to mention the fact that AMDs will run themselves into total destruction without even thinking about it. Intels have ALWAYS been smarter about that, which is why I have always preferred them for their tolerance of build mistakes. Intels shut down long before permanent damage occurs...always have.

 

I think the days are gone when AMD CPUs hadn't had some security technique inside. Another question is: Do you really only focus on LOMAC? Comparing the costs of both Intel and AMD CPUs and some tests the AMDs seem to be a bit less expensive than the Intels are. But thats some similar "religious" question like "russian aircraft or western aircraft"? ;)

 

For me my AMD was a good choice because I had to find a platform to run a fast CPU on AND use my AGP-VidCard (X1950pro 512mb). Buying a whole new rig I maybe would have chosen a n Intel based system too.

[H4rM]

Very simple choice. If you can afford an Intel Core2Duo cpu, then get it. I never have favored one cpu or the other as I always choose whichever is faster at processing information, regardless of namebrand.

 

ie. My AMD 5000+ X2 cpu is no match for my core2duo cpu in everything from 3dstudio max, to cad applications to gaming. I have never seen faster fps than with the core2duo.

[Kuky]

Well for LockOn Core2Duo's... or quad... are better choice over AMD at the moment. In the past there were applications in which AMD would take a nice lead over Intel... and some where Intel had the lead.

 

Today, I don't think any AMD CPU would take lead over Intel (maybe in some raw synthetic benchmarks) but I could be wrong since I've never done any such tests and in fact I've never owned any AMD CPU.

 

I always chose Intel over AMD because for me Intel meant stability where as AMD was the choice for most overclockers and gamers. But then again untill recently I've never actually done any overclocking on any CPU because not only did I chose Intel CPU but also Intel motherboard, and their BIOS would allow only minor overclocking... which I see now is really negligable.

 

Now since we all play LockOn here and people asking which one is better... I assume we all assume question is asking for comparison for LockOn, and in this case Intel wins by good margin. Sorry to say this to any of you AMD fans... but it's true.

 

Intel CPU's are also actually quite cheap now compared to prices od P4's... only the X6800 version (and probably equivalent in Quad) are still very expensive (still around AUD$1500 here) but that's because it has unlocked multiplier usefull for extreme overclocking.

 

I've upgraded my system some 9 months ago going from P4 3.4GHz and X800XTX to E6600 and X1950XTX and difference in LockOn was very great... right now I am running this E6600 at 3.1GHz and well, you could say it's almost same speed as P4 3.4GHz but even though LockOn is still utilising only 1/2 of the 2xCores its performance is much much better on C2D.

 

but hey, I can still get single digits even on this system... just sit on the runway... look towards the city... chuck a few flares... and watch the slideshow :D

[Vekkinho]

Well it's not only Lock On that I'll be running in a year or two, but I find this sim to be the most demanding in terms of performance/quality (eye candy) relation.

 

I mean, LOMAC was released 4 years ago (correct me if I'm wrong) and it kicked ass in graphics and beauty of display but at that time graphic setting had to be seriousely reduced to get some playability. It still seems better (imho), much better than FSx with Dx10 and with release of BS it will advance even more into the future. All the details we see in Official Screenshots and Glowing Amraam's teasers, postponement of release date sound like: "Guys, get ready, save some money, buy newest rigs, tweak 'em, peak 'em and go play!"

 

I run Tom's hardware (www23.tomshardware.com) CPU comparison in the other tab between AMD x2 6000+, E6000 and E6700 that equate in price here in Croatia (cca 250US$ or 170 Eur) but buying a new CPU asks for a new MoBo, RAM, GPU and that's like 1500US$ (1000Eur) in total. Being trigger happy is something I'd like to avoid in this case, so jumping with conclusions is no good 'til BS hits the street.

 

Perhaps someone beta testing BS may share some info on performance if it's not prohibited.

 

Waiting another year for budget pricing of new Xeon or Exterme CPUs is also not welcome 'cause my current rig (P4-2.8Ghz, AGP X800Gto and 1Gb of PC-3200 DDR by Kingmax) slowly cracks under pressure.

[TorwaK]

Even no need to discuss. Just get a C2D cpu and see difference.

[rattler]

Even no need to discuss. Just get a C2D cpu and see difference.

 

You need that system just for Vista. Ha Ha. Just kidding, nice system.