Do dual core CPUs score higher on Benchmarks?

markkleb · May 30, 2006

I know they can multitask but do they score higher on Benchmarks?

tony929292 · May 30, 2006

the newer ones beat single cores in nearly all test

Deleted member 3 · May 30, 2006

Only if the benchmark is multithreaded.

trog100 · May 30, 2006

price for price they would score lower in some and higher in others.. u cant just compare dual to single core.. at the same clock speed they are quite clearly better.. but then again the dual core would cost twice as much..

so worded as it is the question is meaningless.. u have to bring the core speed and cost into it.. the real life benifits of dual core are pretty much over hyped thats for sure..

trog

ps.. for games.. at a given price the faster single core is still the best option..

Jimmy 2004 · May 30, 2006

trog100 said:
ps.. for games.. at a given price the faster single core is still the best option..

That's true at the moment because games aren't programmed to utilise both cores correctly, when they are the dual cores should be faster.

markkleb · May 30, 2006

trog100 said:
price for price they would score lower in some and higher in others.. u cant just compare dual to single core.. at the same clock speed they are quite clearly better.. but then again the dual core would cost twice as much..

so worded as it is the question is meaningless.. u have to bring the core speed and cost into it.. the real life benifits of dual core are pretty much over hyped thats for sure..

trog

ps.. for games.. at a given price the faster single core is still the best option..

I have never been good at explaining what I am thinking, lol.

But your answer is kind of what I was looking for. I have been happy with my 3700+ (till I broke it) I have been hearing how the dual cores were gonna be so great for a long time. Blablabla.

Thanks guys for the answers...Mark

Alec§taar · May 30, 2006

Quake 4 SMP does (latest IDSoftware patch for it)

Jimmy 2004 said:
That's true at the moment because games aren't programmed to utilise both cores correctly, when they are the dual cores should be faster.

Quake 4 is, in its latest patch release, Quake 4 SMP.

It posts up to 87% boosts in frames per second when run on an AMD DualCore CPU solution (vs. single core CPU's), & 25% more frames per second than single core CPU's when run on an Intel "HyperThreaded" CPU.

IIRC, those numbers/percentages are correct, as to what happens when a game IS coded using multiple-thread bearing code for routines that process diff. data simultaneously, & the numbers showing "fps" (not first person shooter, but frames per second counts) gains.

* I noted it on this rig, there IS a diff., & there are games out there now that do take advantage of it, & it wouldn't surprise me if Quake 4 SMP is the FIRST one!

APK

P.S.=> Also, just on a "common-sense" note: If you have a game running @ say, start /HIGH gamename.exe (high priority), on a dual core CPU system, that means the game will potentially (if needed) get MORE cpu time than other apps on a single core...

Now, theoretically speaking, if you have DUAL CORE cpu (or actual physical SMP setup with more than 1 actual physical CPU in place/2 or more cpu socket bearing mobos)?

WELL, IF you run it at start /REALTIME gamename.exe, that means the game will seize control of 1 single CPU core & use it, while the OS & other running apps survive running on the other CPU core present (be it H/T emulated, Dual Core AMD stuff, or true SMP systems)... apk

trog100 · May 30, 2006

"It posts up to 87% boosts in frames per second when run on an AMD DualCore CPU solution"

i dont believe it.. simple as that..

trog

Alec§taar · May 30, 2006

trog100 said:
"It posts up to 87% boosts in frames per second when run on an AMD DualCore CPU solution"

i dont believe it.. simple as that..

trog

Well, like I said above:

Alec§taar said:
IIRC, those numbers/percentages are correct, as to what happens when a game IS coded using multiple-thread bearing code for routines that process diff. data simultaneously, & the numbers showing "fps" (not first person shooter, but frames per second counts) gains.

Feel free to correct me where I am "wrong" on this account, because I did use the 'iirc' & could be off... but, here is what I am citing when I cite those numbers:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=455&num=1

"According to id Software, systems with a single physical core but those capable of benefiting from Hyper-Threading Technology should experience a 25% performance boost. Systems with two or more physical cores should see up to an 87% improvement. The true benefits may vary greatly depending upon the CPU and GPU limitations as well as other factors."

Also, here is a BETA test done on it, before the FINAL model released, just so you have some "solid" numbers (somewhat, because beta code is slower due to debug routines in it still) to look @ as well:

http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?...s&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=225&page=2

Generally, I won't cite numbers unless I have SOMEKIND of backing from others online or from tests etc., but those number stuck out & it appears I cited them correctly from "off the top of my head" which usually, I am NOT "wont to do"... but, there ya are!

APK

P.S.=> BUT, theories' 1 thing, practice is quite another - I'd say, cut those "theoretcical gains" numbers speculations in 1/2 (44% & 13% respectively for SMP/DualCore &-or H/T Intel rigs), & you have about what will ACTUALLY occur!

Fact is, that 2nd URL's test numbers (albeit on a BETA build, full of debug code routines slowing it down) tends to bear that speculation of mine RIGHT out... see it for yourself I would say to make judgements!

This is WHY I went with the AMD Athlon 64 x2 really!

I knew that SMP-capable code (multithreaded code, done properly, processing discrete & diff. data sets simultaneously in games (e.g. sounds &/or networking on 1 thread, game display on another, etc. & more)) would go into effect on games, only a matter of time!

See - I've been writing multiple threaded code for a good 10 years now & it does make a diff. WHEN DONE RIGHT (not as easy as it seems, at least with older languages like Delphi &/or C/C++ imo & experience - but easier today with tools like .NET by far imo, even in VB.NET)...

I almost went with the FX amd series, but figured that games would start using multiple threads & that SMP type Dual Core cpu's by AMD would make up the performance diff. & Quake 4 SMP demonstrates this cleanly... see above! apk

gR3iF · May 30, 2006

but its the only game and its the only physik engine that is supporting dual core so atm when you have to watch your money take a good single core one^^

Alec§taar · May 30, 2006

How SMP ready code, really works & where/why on diff. CPU types (single vs. dual core

Read this thru, end-to-end, I think you may find it "enlightening":

gR3iF said:
but its the only game and its the only physik engine that is supporting dual core

Yes, for now, it is apparently the ONLY one (from the "mind of a great one" (imo & experience, J.C.'s of IDSoftware's one of my "intellectual heroes" in this field))...

However, imo, it is the 'start of things to come' really! For years, I told folks on forums that SMP/H-T/DualCore type CPU setups would become the norm, & now?

They have become that "norm", & not only on the physical hardware level, but in programmatic optimizations for it, via multiple thread usage in apps & also improvements in process scheduler algorithms on today's modern PC OS' as well/also!

E.G.-> I ran & have run SMP rigs (actually 2 or more CPU's on mobo physically present) since 1997 & have noted what CAN be done with them in my own code.

This is where I first started seeing what could gain on this, back as far as NT 4.0 iirc, & it wasn't as GOOD @ multiple thread usage (due to process scheduler optimizations in the OS' of today vs. those of yesteryear for PC's @ least).

So, that said?

I had to put that data out on the last page on how Quake 4 SMP gains (big)...

Just to dispell any doubts of what SMP ready/properly multithreaded code can do, on a SMP/DualCore/H-T setup - when coded, right.

* It does work, & for instance, it is where you want to be today & I'll tell you why:

gR3iF said:
so atm when you have to watch your money take a good single core one^^

Open your taskmgr.exe program & use its columns display option (VIEW MENU), & check off the THREADS item & then, switch to the PROCESSES tab.

You'll doubtless see a GOOD 80-90% of your apps you run (inclusive of system services etc.) ARE multithreaded...

This means your OS is already ready, as are many of your apps (again, assuming they are coded so they do NOT hit "race conditions" (apps chasing same data @ same exact time locking one another out) etc.).

Also, so you all know, multithreaded code actually runs SLOWER on single-core CPU's...

Yes, that's right.

If you have a single core CPU, you actually are running multithreaded code SLOWER than it would run on an SMP setup type of rig...

Multithreaded code has more overheads on single cpu core setups, no questions asked, whereas on the converse, on SMP/DualCore/H-T rigs?

It gains more headroom & performance!

(Quake 4 SMP EASILY bears that out... see last page!)

So, given that a GOOD 85% OR MORE (avg. of what you SHOULD see using taskmgr.exe) of what you run bears 2-n threads? What type of system will run your rigs faster??

SMP/DualCore/H-T, or single core???

APK

P.S.=> Examples of things that WON'T gain using multiple threads? Easy one to digest here (apps that process things in a linear fashion waiting out the results of one operation vs. another):

A = A + 1
B = A + B

B has to "wait out" the result of A to finish, prior to its being able to process itself... this is NOT an area where you would apply multiple thread processing, because it is LINEAR in nature, AND, both calcs use the same data (A result)!

However, running your networking code on 1 thread, your sounds on another, & your game display loop on yet another thread? Gains... big gains, see the ones in Quake 4 SMP from last page, again, as reference to the possibles! apk

PVTCaboose1337 · May 30, 2006

We get it! Dual core owns! But come now, only 3 or 4 games use dual core.

Alec§taar · May 30, 2006

PVTCaboose1337 said:
We get it! Dual core owns! But come now, only 3 or 4 games use dual core.

Games are coming slowly but surely (Quake 4 SMP is only a "Portent of things to come"), but DO pay attention to the 2nd half of my last post too, fairly important imo...

I.E.-> Your OS gains overall, as do many of your apps, because of their multiple thread design & improvements in today's OS process schedulers.

It's basically having two (or more) arms to process work, diff. discrete tasks gain best (when done in the SAME "code body")... it's just more efficient & faster, Quake 4 SMP demos this for you all (see last page results on that account).

And, single core CPU's do run multiple thread bearing code slower (and you should see a GOOD 90% of what you have running in taskmgr.exe as 2-n thread bearing @ the very least)...

This is why I went with the DualCore AMD Athlon 64 x2, vs. an FX series single-core designed CPU by AMD...

I'll gain largely by the DualCore design, not only in games, but in daily general operations (especially since I multitask a LOT! e.g.-> Right now, I am watching WinTV32, posting here to you, compiling a VB.NET app & it's ALL running absolutely smooth as glass), and so will you guys... I am "not alone" in this regard by any means.

Not that a FAST FX series AMD cpu wouldn't run well enough on an FX singlecore, but it wouldn't be as efficient because most of what you run IS multithreaded nowadays!

Simply because single core cpu's have more overheads with multithreaded code than do SMP/DualCore/H-T cpu's...

APK

P.S.=> A lot of folks talked about "Future Proofing" themselves, so... that said? What would I be looking for??

AM2 with SMP/DualCore designed CPU's - THAT's the "high-performance future" guys... on ALL levels, not just games!

Personally? I'd wait it out a gen or 2, especially IF AMD does go "Quad Core"... apk

markkleb · May 30, 2006

Thanks AlecStaar for taking the time to explain it. I am pretty good at building stuff but the programing part is usually over my head.

For a simple mind like mine when the game is running on one of the cores the other core is free to run Windows and apps.( is that kind of close?)

PVTCaboose1337 · May 30, 2006

No, markkleb, think it means each core concontrates on different aspects of the game.

tony929292 · May 30, 2006

i would have to agree price for pricr on games is single is better but it just a matter of time that game will be two threads (i mean right around the coner) probaly when vista is relased they start muti thread games on the main stream level plus use sandra test on what you do the most that should give you the best idea a bulit my rig 9 months ago andi know my 660 which was top of intel processors (barring 3.73 and 670) is all ready a pos and will build a new rig for gaming in the next 6 months plus in gaming the gpu is the thing to look at some on could have a cheap processor with a great gpu and get 20 fps less then the 1000 dollar cpu so is 80 fps good enough or 100 fps for 800 dollars what u what

Alec§taar · May 30, 2006

markkleb said:
Thanks AlecStaar for taking the time to explain it.

Well, my explanations are 1 thing - showing you what is possible via the Quake 4 SMP results is the "real icing on the cake" imo @ least.

I can tell you all the "programmatic design theory/OS Process Scheduler theory" in the world, but w/out concrete results for you all to see?

It's not worth squat!

markkleb said:
I am pretty good at building stuff but the programing part is usually over my head.

Ah, think of it as your body, this makes things MUCH simpler/easier to understand - you have 2 arms right? That's DualCore/SMP/H-T...

You can get more done with 2 arms, than 1, by all means (usually in most cases). You can hear more & in stereo no less, with 2 ears vs. 1... with 2 eyes, you have depth perception, with 1 you do not (i.e.-> I wouldn't try driving your car with 1 eye covered, surefire recipe for rear-ending someone in front of you @ stoplights for instance).

With dual (or more) anything? You gain, somehow.

markkleb said:
For a simple mind like mine when the game is running on one of the cores the other core is free to run Windows and apps.( is that kind of close?)

Well, yes... & especially if you use the start /REALTIME gamename.exe on it.

Folks will tell you this will "lockup" a system, and on a single CPU one? It very well may & often does... but, NOT on a DualCore/SMP/H-T rig.

Running an app in "REALTIME" cpu priority will let that app take control of & get FULL unlimited access to one of your dual-or-more present CPU cores... while the apps & OS survive on the 2nd or more other cpu cores present.

Now, if needed (in that scenario even)? The other threads CAN be "shunted off to" another CPU core if the first is "saturated" as well... even when running a game in /REALTIME cpu priority given its parent thread/main thread.

The OS ProcessScheduler portion takes care of this, & no "SetProcessAffinity" (well, this is really for singlethreaded apps) or "SetThreadAffinityMask" (THIS is what you'd use in a multithreaded app to send a thread to a SPECIFIC CPU) SMP specific API calls needed in the code either...

APK

Jimmy 2004 · May 30, 2006

markkleb said:
Thanks AlecStaar for taking the time to explain it. I am pretty good at building stuff but the programing part is usually over my head.

For a simple mind like mine when the game is running on one of the cores the other core is free to run Windows and apps.( is that kind of close?)

That is how many current games can work, for example if a game is programmed for single core you can get it to run on the core that is not processing windows in the background. In the future games will utilise both cores simultaniously.

Alec§taar · May 30, 2006

Jimmy 2004 said:
That is how many current games can work, for example if a game is programmed for single core you can get it to run on the core that is not processing windows in the background. In the future games will utilise both cores simultaniously.

"The future is now" - see last page Jim, on Quake 4 SMP results...

* It's GOOD stuff, & not THAT hard to implement in code imo & experience (depending largely on the task @ hand (I provided examples above where I would NOT try multiple thread bearing code implementation on linear dependent ops for example above in the math routine noted)).

APK

P.S.=> Quake 4 SMP illustrates that "the future is now", not just speculation either - huge gains are evident & SMP/DualCore/H-T systems ARE THE way to go, imo & experience @ least & examples I provided above for you all to think about...

AMD with AM2 will rock, but imo? Not until they go another gen or two, probably into Quad Core designs, once the bugs & latencies issues "shake out" & they will... they always do! AMD will do more work on their CPU driver (like NVidia NForce 4-5 chipsets have) & work it out.

IMO, this is why waiting out "next gen"/"latest gen" stuff is always prudent!

I've seen it before, & noted exactly what I mean, in this thread (related to this one somewhat):

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?p=100399#post100399

IMO, for what its worth? The gains won't be so much in DDR2 (because only memory intensive apps seem to gain here, & the ONLY thing ever shown to gain was raw memory based benchmarks apps so far from what I have seen)... but, will be in Multiple thread design use in apps & OS process schedulers taking advantage of it!

The Quake 4 SMP only illustrates it, & that future you spoke of?

IS now!

apk

Jimmy 2004 · May 30, 2006

Alec§taar said:
"The future is now" - see last page Jim, on Quake 4 SMP results...

I don't see how one game can be used to say the future is now... the majority of recent games are primarily designed for single core and it will be a year or two before that changes. :cool:

Azn Tr14dZ · May 30, 2006

trog100 said:
"It posts up to 87% boosts in frames per second when run on an AMD DualCore CPU solution"

i dont believe it.. simple as that..

trog

It does post "up to 87%", but usually when they say that, the test were run on 800x600. You do get that much of a gain at lower resolutions, then the gain drops slowly the higher resolution you are at. But no matter what, if you have a Dual-Core processor and a patch for multi-threaded games such as Quake IV and Call of Duty 2, you get more FPS. I'm using the Call of Duty 2 1.01 patch for Dual-Core, Multi-Core, and Hyper-Threaded processor's and I get about 15-20 frames increase on most environments (except the ones with a lot of smoke, I get only about 10-15 frames more 1280x1024 4x AA and Adaptive AA at quality and AF enabled). Not bad actually.

Azn Tr14dZ · May 30, 2006

Jimmy 2004 said:
I don't see how one game can be used to say the future is now... the majority of recent games are primarily designed for single core and it will be a year or two before that changes.

They're having more and more multi-threaded games though, and some existing ones will have a patch soon for multi-threaded CPU's. it probably will take a while to have every game multi-threaded but they're bringing more of them to the market, and the performance shows.

Alec§taar · May 30, 2006

Jimmy 2004 said:
I don't see how one game can be used to say the future is now... the majority of recent games are primarily designed for single core and it will be a year or two before that changes.

It's the start of most games being this way, imo.

Quake 4 SMP is just a prototype view into that future (working production one) that illustrates how massive the gains can be on an SMP/DualCore/or even H-T cpu.

BUT, that's only (gaming) the TIP of the iceberg of gains... the gains come not only in gaming, but many other areas of your system's operations.

E.G.-> Read my other points in detail if you haven't, about how multithreaded code gains above via today's OS ProcessSchedulers, & how much of your code today (viewable as noted above via taskmgr.exe example of how to see threadcounts per app/service) is designed for it with it being multithreaded 2-n threads, already, today.

(And, yes, multithreaded code generally does run SLOWER on single core CPU's than it does on SMP/DualCore/H-T ones, because it has more overheads on it than std. single threaded code on single CPU rigs...)

APK

P.S.=> Bottom-line though, keeping in context with your statement & my reply to it? Games like that are here already - I noted/cited Quake 4 SMP & the gains it illustrates & it IS here already, now.

Others noted other games I was not aware of period, in the posts prior to this one from me... neat, they ARE coming faster & faster now! Which is GOOD...

Would I go SINGLE CORE cpu today? NO... I haven't in years, nearly a decade now since 1997 running SMP rigs! There really IS a difference... depending on HOW you use your rig, that is! It always comes down to THAT point... apk

trog100 · May 31, 2006

soo if i nip out and spend a grand on an fX62 i will see about 15 more fps in quake 4 than i now do with my crappy old (slightly overclocked admittedly) out of date 3700 single core cpu.. ????

where fram rates matter i would still argue its all pretty much down to the grafx card.. at silly low resolutions and super high frame rates nobody plays yep.. but then again we are back down to bang for buck.. spending the extra money on faster single core cpu would probably produce similar results..

and for the two games that are claimed to benefit i could produce forty that dont.. in fact price for price the slower dual core cpu would lose out every time with 98% of available games..

trog

Azn Tr14dZ · May 31, 2006

You have an X1900XTX so your 3700+ is probably a bottleneck. So if you do get an FX-60, you will get more frames because one, you're not bottlenecked anymore and 2, it's dual core so you get even more in Quake IV and CoD2.

Processor	intel q9450 at 3100 artic silver5 tt big typoon
Motherboard	asus p5n32e-sli plus
Cooling	13 fans total that includes heatsink fans etc
Memory	4 gb ocz gold pc5400 oc to 775 2.1 voltage 4-4-3-4
Video Card(s)	1 bfg7800gtoc oc to 510/1800 at 1.5v valmans fatal1ty 36c idle
Storage	2 80gb wd raptors raid-0 , 1 seagate barracuda 160gb
Display(s)	sony sdm-hs53 + fan controller 3.5 internal card reader and 1 internal floopy
Case	Logisys Dracula Case blue
Audio Device(s)	x-fi fatal1ty
Power Supply	aspire 680watts sli
Software	vista unltimate x86

System Name	money pit..
Processor	Intel 9900K 4.8 at 1.152 core voltage minus 0.120 offset
Motherboard	Asus rog Strix Z370-F Gaming
Cooling	Dark Rock TF air cooler.. Stock vga air coolers with case side fans to help cooling..
Memory	32 gb corsair vengeance 3200
Video Card(s)	Palit Gaming Pro OC 2080TI
Storage	150 nvme boot drive partition.. 1T Sandisk sata.. 1T Transend sata.. 1T 970 evo nvme m 2..
Display(s)	27" Asus PG279Q ROG Swift 165Hrz Nvidia G-Sync, IPS.. 2560x1440..
Case	Gigabyte mid-tower.. cheap and nothing special..
Audio Device(s)	onboard sounds with stereo amp..
Power Supply	EVGA 850 watt..
Mouse	Logitech G700s
Keyboard	Logitech K270
Software	Win 10 pro..
Benchmark Scores	Firestike 29500.. timepsy 14000..

System Name	Jimmy 2004's PC
Processor	S754 AMD Athlon64 3200+ @ 2640MHz
Motherboard	ASUS K8N
Cooling	AC Freezer 64 Pro + Zalman VF1000 + 5x120mm Antec TriCool Case Fans
Memory	1GB Kingston PC3200 (2x512MB)
Video Card(s)	Saphire 256MB X800 GTO @ 450MHz/560MHz (Core/Memory)
Storage	500GB Western Digital SATA II + 80GB Maxtor DiamondMax SATA
Display(s)	Digimate 17" TFT (1280x1024)
Case	Antec P182
Audio Device(s)	Audigy 4 + Creative Inspire T7900 7.1 Speakers
Power Supply	Corsair HX520W
Software	Windows XP Home

Processor	DualCore AMD Athlon 64x2 4800+ (o/c 2801mhz STABLE (Ketxxx, POGE, Tatty One, ME))
Motherboard	ASUS A8N-SLI Premium (PCIe x16, x4, x1)
Cooling	PhaseChange Coolermaster CM754/939 (fan/heatsink), Thermalright heatspreaders + fan built on (RAM)
Memory	512mb PC-3200 DDR400 (set DDR-33 for o/c) by Corsair (matched pair, 2x256mb) 200.1/200mhz
Video Card(s)	BFG GeForce 7900 GTX OC 512mb GDDR3 ram (o/c manually to 686 core/865 memory) - PhaseChange cooled
Storage	Dual "Raptor X" 16mb 10krpm/RAID 0 Promise EX8350 x4 PCIe 128mb & Intel IO chip/CENATEK RocketDrive
Display(s)	SONY 19" Trinitron MultiScan 400ps 1600x1200 75hz refresh 32-bit color
Case	Antec Super-LanBoy (aluminum baby-tower w/ lower front & upper rear cooling exhaust fans)
Audio Device(s)	RealTek AC97 onboard mobo stereo sound (Altec Lansing ACS-45 speakers - 10 yrs. still running!)
Power Supply	Antec 500w ATX 2.0 "SmartPower" powersupply
Software	Windows Server 2003 SP #1 fully patched, & massively tuned/tweaked to-the-max (plus latest drivers)

System Name	money pit..
Processor	Intel 9900K 4.8 at 1.152 core voltage minus 0.120 offset
Motherboard	Asus rog Strix Z370-F Gaming
Cooling	Dark Rock TF air cooler.. Stock vga air coolers with case side fans to help cooling..
Memory	32 gb corsair vengeance 3200
Video Card(s)	Palit Gaming Pro OC 2080TI
Storage	150 nvme boot drive partition.. 1T Sandisk sata.. 1T Transend sata.. 1T 970 evo nvme m 2..
Display(s)	27" Asus PG279Q ROG Swift 165Hrz Nvidia G-Sync, IPS.. 2560x1440..
Case	Gigabyte mid-tower.. cheap and nothing special..
Audio Device(s)	onboard sounds with stereo amp..
Power Supply	EVGA 850 watt..
Mouse	Logitech G700s
Keyboard	Logitech K270
Software	Win 10 pro..
Benchmark Scores	Firestike 29500.. timepsy 14000..

Processor	Intel I7 2600k@ 4.5
Motherboard	Gigabyte p67 ud4 b3
Cooling	AC Cuplex kryos Hf
Memory	8096 Exceleram 1600@ 1333 Cl9 1.35v
Video Card(s)	Palit Gtx570@950/1900@1.063v
Storage	Ocz Vertex 3 120gb, 2tb Seagate 7200rpm s-ata3
Display(s)	Asus 24inch Lcd
Case	Coolermaster Cosmos S
Audio Device(s)	Creative X-fi with Teufel Magnum Power Edition
Power Supply	Coolermaster 700W Silent Pro Gold
Software	Linux?^^ ;P Windows 7 64bit

System Name	Whim
Processor	Intel Core i5 2500k @ 4.4ghz
Motherboard	Asus P8Z77-V LX
Cooling	Cooler Master Hyper 212+
Memory	2 x 4GB G.Skill Ripjaws @ 1600mhz
Video Card(s)	Gigabyte GTX 670 2gb
Storage	Samsung 840 Pro 256gb, WD 2TB Black
Display(s)	Shimian QH270 (1440p), Asus VE228 (1080p)
Case	Cooler Master 430 Elite
Audio Device(s)	Onboard > PA2V2 Amp > Senn 595's
Power Supply	Corsair 750w
Software	Windows 8.1 (Tweaked)

Processor	AMD Athlon 64 3200+
Motherboard	DFI LanParty nf4 Ultra-D
Cooling	Thermaltake Big Typhoon
Memory	2x512MB GeIL
Video Card(s)	ATI Radeon X800XL
Storage	2x80GB Western Digital
Display(s)	HP vs17
Case	SuperTalent
Audio Device(s)	Soundblaster
Power Supply	Ultra X-Finity 500 Watt

Do dual core CPUs score higher on Benchmarks?

markkleb

Guest

New Member

New Member

markkleb

Guest

New Member

New Member

New Member

Graphical Hacker

New Member

markkleb

Guest

Graphical Hacker

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member