X2 4400+

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Hephaistion

    #16
    Re: X2 4400+

    Originally posted by Berrern
    You're wrong.
    For pure gaming only, the single cores are faster - but when running a lot of background apps, the dual core really comes to life. Just have a look at this graph from Anandtech, where they tested gaming performance with a lot of other programs running in the background. The X2 4200+ beats the FX-55 hands down:



    For the full article, go here.

    All in all, it comes down to the tasks which you use your computer for.
    I don't know about you but I am not downloading, updating my DAT's, burning a CD and rendering a CAD model while gaming. Ask most gamers and they will tell you that they disable spyware, antivirus, software firewalls, and anything else that "runs in the background", now explain to me where a Dual Core beats an FX for pure gaming. It is time for you to to stop hitting the peace pipe.

    Oh most gamers don't play Doom 3 either.

    Comment

    • Berrern
      Member
      • Jul 2005
      • 585

      #17
      Re: X2 4400+

      Originally posted by j-train
      now explain to me where a Dual Core beats an FX for pure gaming. It is time for you to to stop hitting the peace pipe.
      No, it's time for you to start reading posts properly before you type your replies - I never said that a DualCore beats an FX for pure gaming, in fact I said the opposite

      Comment

      • Hephaistion

        #18
        Re: X2 4400+

        Originally posted by Berrern
        No, it's time for you to start reading posts properly before you type your replies - I never said that a DualCore beats an FX for pure gaming, in fact I said the opposite
        Maybe you should read my replies more carefully.I said that most gamers aren't running any background apps so what is the point of the Dual-core comparison.

        Comment

        • Berrern
          Member
          • Jul 2005
          • 585

          #19
          Re: X2 4400+

          Yep, but you made your post so personal with all the "you"s so it seemed like it was directed at me. At least it seems we agree on the same points :)

          Originally posted by j-train
          what is the point of the Dual-core comparison
          The point of the comparison is to provide the OP with as much info as I can - exactly as he requested. This isn't about what "most gamers" do, but what the OP is doing. For all we know, he burns CDs and runs BitTorrent while playing

          Comment

          • whofriggincares

            #20
            Re: X2 4400+

            What about when your virus scan starts a scan in the middle of playing? What if your anti-spyware program starts a scan? How nice it is not to worry about your computer locking up or causing your game to crash. To be able to minimize any and all programs like they are text documents. It's also nice to burn dvds while I'm playing. Yes some poeple do multi-task.

            Comment

            • Eddy01741

              #21
              Re: X2 4400+

              Originally posted by rymaples
              Dual core is not a waste. I wouldn't listen to this guy, he's the same one that said that 1GB runs BF2 on all maxed vid settings with no lag.
              Simple fact is i do, so why don't u shut up. Just cause u think it's unfair that u can't run high with 1gb of ram doesn't mean other people can't. Anyways, the xbit labs article: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...-games2_3.html
              Ya, i think a sub-1 FPS difference between a 3200+ and a FX-57 is a lot. Anyways, i don't care if u don't believe that i can play all high with 6xaa and 16xaf on 1280x1024, cause while ur bitchin about it, i'll just be pwning on BF2 lol. :p

              Comment

              • Sir. S.A.S

                #22
                Re: X2 4400+



                Well here i see the X2 4400 beats the FX-55 remember im buying one for the future not the present and when games use dual cores ill be ready, and FX processor are very exspensive. And yes rymaples post is correct i regualy have the dreaded AVG virus scan pop up and kill my fps!

                Im still in favour of buy a X2 4400 and by the way im not the one for the overclocking as my room is very hot so keeping at base temps is a sensible option!

                Comment

                • Eddy01741

                  #23
                  Re: X2 4400+

                  Originally posted by Sir. S.A.S
                  http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.ht...2=239&chart=58

                  Well here i see the X2 4400 beats the FX-55 remember im buying one for the future not the present and when games use dual cores ill be ready, and FX processor are very exspensive. And yes rymaples post is correct i regualy have the dreaded AVG virus scan pop up and kill my fps!

                  Im still in favour of buy a X2 4400 and by the way im not the one for the overclocking as my room is very hot so keeping at base temps is a sensible option!
                  Happens to me, i just disable the norton anti-virus that i got with my mobo. I turn it on after i am done playing BF2. But i just hate internet security when ur playing games, anyways, i don't trust tom's hardware, they are kinda intel and ati biased.

                  Comment

                  Working...