FM 09 - 3Ghz DualCore or 2.4Ghz QuadCore?

Which would you suggest?

I'm getting a new system next month to replace my AMD 3000 2Ghz single core system and obviously the most important issue is how much i can get out of FM 09.

It'll have 3-4 Gb Ram so that won't be a problem though if i'm handed a 64bit OS i might increase that.

Does FM 09 take advantage of multiple cores?

What specific CPU? By 3000 do you mean the Brisbane core AMD 6000+?

If so thats fine .. I use that one with 48 or so leagues running.

Quad core I believe is not supported presently, only the two.

Although that may change in the near future as it can't be too hard to accomodate the extra mhz ...?

I'd get the quad Intel personally, they are much better than the AMD's. Unfortunately they is considerably more expensive - and not just the processors. The chipsets are costlier too, although in my professional and personal opinion Intel chipsets have always been market leaders in terms of performance and build quality.

Also if you plan on using more than 2gb of ram, then you'll want a 64 bit version of windows.

What specific CPU? By 3000 do you mean the Brisbane core AMD 6000+?

If so thats fine .. I use that one with 48 or so leagues running.

Quad core I believe is not supported presently, only the two.

Although that may change in the near future as it can't be too hard to accomodate the extra mhz ...?

I'd get the quad Intel personally, they are much better than the AMD's. Unfortunately they is considerably more expensive - and not just the processors. The chipsets are costlier too, although in my professional and personal opinion Intel chipsets have always been market leaders in terms of performance and build quality.

Also if you plan on using more than 2gb of ram, then you'll want a 64 bit version of windows.

Am looking at one of the Intel E8000 series or the Q6600.

Don't know what happened to amd, i used to prefer them, but now they seem to be a whole chipset behind Intel.

The processor i have now is the AMD Athlon 64 3000 running at normal 2Ghz clock speed. The 6000 is their 3Ghz Dual Core i believe.

depending on your answer to my question in another post i might add an SSD to help FM along.

If you get the Q6600 95v one it really overclocks

Q6600 is lovely .. and sure the E8000's can overclock but when you have a Q6600 you won't bother with such petty chavery.

yeah i've heard of peop[le getting it to well over 3ghz.

I however won't dare to try that until i've learned how to overclock. Thats why i'm going to keep hold of this that i have and fiddle around with it until it decides i've tortured it enough.

You might aswell get a quad now, and dont worry about upgrading again in a few years.

Currently it is better to have a dual core processor.

Main reason is that they work at a higher clock speed which is better for the vast vast majority of current games as very few have proper quad core support.

Also, the Intel dual cores overclock like hell. My previous computer had an E2100 overclocked to 3.5Ghz with no problems at all.

Just curious but how do you 'overclock'? Doeas it need an extra program or an extra bit of hardware? Can it be done on laptops etc?

Just curious but how do you 'overclock'? Doeas it need an extra program or an extra bit of hardware? Can it be done on laptops etc?

You need a 'proper' BIOS that lets you manually set the voltages on the bus. Laptops never have this or very rarely anyway, they usually have crappy software implementations.

You need a 'proper' BIOS that lets you manually set the voltages on the bus. Laptops never have this or very rarely anyway, they usually have crappy software implementations.

Oh right, but technically it is possible on all machines with a proper BIOS?

Oh right, but technically it is possible on all machines with a proper BIOS?

Sure. Although only premium motherboards (desktop) usually have that option.

There are internet reviews comparing both of these processors. Most of the reviews suggest the Dual Core is the best as even now most games still only lightly touch Dual Core and don't make full use of Quad Core. Either way both will run FM09 without many issues as long as the RAM and graphics card complement the system.

There are internet reviews comparing both of these processors. Most of the reviews suggest the Dual Core is the best as even now most games still only lightly touch Dual Core and don't make full use of Quad Core. Either way both will run FM09 without many issues as long as the RAM and graphics card complement the system.

Spot on. Although dual core will be 'budget' old hat in 12 months time.

In fact the 6000+ is already well deprecated. I bought mine last month to upgrade an AM2 system from a 4000+ since they were being dumped by the supplier. I wouldn't even entertain dual core if building a new system to last the next 18 months or so.

I'm sure I've seen someone from SI saying that FM09 only uses dual core and a quad core is unnecessary (Or something like that).

go for the future, go for quadcore, i ahve AMD Phenom 9750 Quadcore rated at 2.4 Ghz at the moment with a a gtx 260 Nvidia card. It's the bomb it really is, Dual core works just as well for now, but thats just for now. It's like asking if you should get an old Pentium 2 or a new Pentium 3 because games don't need a Pentium 3 at the moment.

Lol Phailnom.

Also pretty much any motherboard can overclock these days to varying levels. Just get a decent guide and bump it up bit by bit.

I wouldnt buy either and save for an I7

Lol Phailnom.

Also pretty much any motherboard can overclock these days to varying levels. Just get a decent guide and bump it up bit by bit.

I wouldnt buy either and save for an I7

That might be true, certainly most boards will allow you to change the hyper transport, FSB or even memory bus etc. But only a premium board will allow you the kind of voltage regulation/fine tuning capacity you need to make it worth doing.

A budget board might offer a 10% overclock .. is that worth bothering with?

Best to just buy a decent solution and/or the right equipment. I find overlocking pointless in the greater scheme of things; ocassionally there comes along a cpu that can be really exploited but these days increased mhz don't always translate into increased performance and the knock on effects of additional heat and power consumption usually account for any percieved financial saving.

wont be waiting for an i7, the single cored 2Ghz Amd will seem like a turtle up against an F1 car when i buy the new PC with quad cored 2.4Ghz Intel chip.

No point spending crazy money for something i'll likely never get full use of.

That'll last me for a good few years.

I'm doing BSc Computing though so i'll probably build an i7 system in a year or so, when prices are more reasonable, as part of my studies (That'll be my excuse anyway). An expensive assignment i think you'd agree.