dual core 1.8, or single core 3.6?

[skrillek]

dual core 1.8, or single core 3.6?
i have 3.6ghz but i was wondering which is better? i understand that dual core is more efficient and can multi task. but if i was playing farcry 3 which is really heavy on the cpu, and the ram and gpu wasnt effecting the performance, then which would be better? i think 3.6 because farcry would be the only programme running. and even though the dual core has two cpus, would it be able to share the load between them? or does it have a limit of 1.8.

So, is dual core better for running lot of little tasks, and a single core better for running tougher tasks?
any other information regarding cpu speeds will be appreciated.

 

[AddRAM]

Are you looking to upgrade your current rig ?

You should really get a quad core in at least the 3.4 GHz range.

Find out exactly what your MB will support, then go from there.

 

[LMiller7]

You would want a dual core as a minimum. A single core CPU will have problems with system responsiveness, no matter what the clock speed may be. There are no easy answers when comparing clock speeds and number of cores. It depends greatly on the nature of the applications running.

Most modern CPUs suitable for gaming will be guad core anyway. For most games more cores is probably a waste. But of course your choice of CPU is limited by the motherboard. You cannot choose just any CPU with the same socket.

 

[skrillek]

I know all this, and I do want to upgrade but what I really want to know is what I asked. So, is dual core better for running lot of little tasks, and a single core better for running tougher tasks?
Because when you said to get at least the quad core 3.4, will it be as fast because I don't get great fps on farcry3 with my 3.6 ghz

 

[Boozad]

I know all this, and I do want to upgrade but what I really want to know is what I asked. So, is dual core better for running lot of little tasks, and a single core better for running tougher tasks?
Because when you said to get at least the quad core 3.4, will it be as fast because I don't get great fps on farcry3 with my 3.6 ghz

That could well be down to your GPU too, although there's every possibility a dual core APU is bottle necking the 650.

 

[LMiller7]

So, is dual core better for running lot of little tasks, and a single core better for running tougher tasks?

That depends on the nature of the tasks. There are no easy answers. But in practice a single core CPU is pretty much out of the question if you want decent performance. There are some unusual situations where a fast single core will perform better than a slower dual core but gaming is not one of them. But in any event any modern CPU that is suitable for gaming will be at least dual core anyway.

 

[skrillek]

So a 1.8 dual core is better than a 3.6 single core? And with my current set up what is holding me back? Soon I am getting a tb of hdd memory. Would I need a new gpu or rom ram or new mb... Also can you get higher then an eitherghz cpu?

 

[skrillek]

Also why is dual core better? Sorry to be so picky

 

[LMiller7]

So a 1.8 dual core is better than a 3.6 single core?

As I have said several times, there are no easy answers to that. There is no single answer that applies to every situation.

A big advantage of a dual over a singe core is in system responsiveness which is often more important than absolute performance. In such a situation it matters little how fast a single core CPU may be. With 2 or more cores there is a better chance that one is inactive at any given moment and can be brought into service. This is not an easy thing to understand without having an understanding of Windows thread scheduling and that isn't simple.

But, and has already been mentioned, this is largely academic. Except for a number of low end CPUs, single core CPUs are largely obsolete.

 

[skrillek]

Okay thank you