I'm not talking theortically I'm talking about real world gaming performance.
2007-03-11 09:05:09 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Computers & Internet ➔ Hardware ➔ Other - Hardware
in the "real world" the dual core would be better, more pipes to the data, so less heat, the same info gets processed faster.
Of course, The GPU you use has just as much to do with gaming, in some cases, even more.
2007-03-11 09:13:49 · answer #1 · answered by rpcohen64 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
At this time, dual-cores are great and offer more registers to perform operations than a single core. However, if the software isn't optimized to use dual-cores, it will only utilize one core and that would be 1.8GHz compared to 3.6. Though Windows 2000 and above can utilize multiple processors, its the actual game you should take into consideration that may not be coded for it. And for that reason it may be more effective to stay with a single core, unless you want to invest into the future now and reap the benifits later once it takes off.
2007-03-11 09:24:26 · answer #2 · answered by Elliot K 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
For gaming use this chart:
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html
Dual can help some, but you have to assign windows one core, the game to the other core (around 10-20% gain). But most games will require the video card to be the fastest thing in the system, and having 2gb of ram can really help.
http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics.html
2007-03-11 13:50:59 · answer #3 · answered by computertech82 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I like p4.
2007-03-11 09:19:33 · answer #4 · answered by megahot megababe 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋