Dual core or No Dual core

[karnak]

HI.

First post.

I have a first simple question here. I dont know whether to go dual core or stay single core?

I only play games like GW and Counter Strike Source both of which are not coded to use Dual Core Processors, I have an X360 so I get my high end games for that. I dont do any video or phto stuff I simply surf the web and play GW and CS:S.

Thanks..

[Rick]

It is always better to get the Best cpu you can afford

In this case that is dual core or dual core 2

You will find it will run almost everything better
And you will be ready for the next version's of your software

[karnak]

Well that would be great if I could afford Dual Core, but I am buying a PC from Vadim and it is almost £700 just for the base unit with dual core and around £668 with a normal Athlon 64 am2 which is much better. I know that if programs are not coded to run with dual core then it will only use 50% of each. Like I said I dont really need to run complex programs and I am not planning on getting vista untill late 2007 or even 2008 as I think OS's are overpriced and All I play is guild wars and CS:S both of which run beautifully on the system I want (60FPS) maxed out which is fine to me.

[saphalline]

If you can't afford dual-core then there's no sense debating about it! :p Your options are limited.

Dual-core isn't necessarily for high end gaming or usage exclusively. It helps during multitasking no matter what you're doing. And with the prices so low, it's a no-brainer for most people. However, dual-core has not yet fully supplanted single-core CPU's. You can get a modern single-core CPU for $40-60. But a modern dual-core CPU is just shy of $200. So yeah, there's still a price difference for anyone building a budget machine.