Dual or Quad core?
- Thread starter metro
- Start date
Dual will be faster for almost any current game.
Quad is better if you like to do multitasking. Or, like virtualization or file serving or something.
I'd go dual, unless you like that quads are just plain cooler. (The only reason I've kept mine
)
Quad is better if you like to do multitasking. Or, like virtualization or file serving or something.
I'd go dual, unless you like that quads are just plain cooler. (The only reason I've kept mine
)
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2008
- Messages
- 589
I went quad to future proof myself. In terms of bang for your buck with todays video games, it seems that clock speed is the key between dual core and quad core. Seeing as you can get a faster clocked dual core for the same a quad core at the same price, a dual core will give you more bang for you buck for todays games.
Once game developers really start to utilize multi threading, and more than two cores, the quad cores will be better, probably at slower clock speeds.
So, today, dual core is a better bang for your buck. Quad allows you to do more at the same time, but will cost you more for the same clock speed.
Once game developers really start to utilize multi threading, and more than two cores, the quad cores will be better, probably at slower clock speeds.
So, today, dual core is a better bang for your buck. Quad allows you to do more at the same time, but will cost you more for the same clock speed.
Hope this link help:
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000942.html
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000942.html
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2008
- Messages
- 111
You're not going to "future proof" yourself with a current quad.
When Duals were new - I bought 2 AMD FX55's - the BEST unicore my money could buy.
Those two systems are still running very strong today.
And we all know how old the FX55 is.
If I had put my money into a DUAL at that time - it would be garbage today.
You should, IMO, pump all your cash into the best DUAL your money can buy. You'll be much happier in the long run - when people (today) who are buying those brand-new quads are shopping for a NEW quad - while your DUAL is still running strong.
That's my $0.02 - after 15 years of building and buying PCs - I made the same mistakes everyone else is making - but a long time ago.
Listen to what I'm spouting - and you'll be a happier gamer.
Think Quad's going to do your gaming good - well - you'll be buying a new CPU in a year or two when you get sick of bad performance.
( Really - you should take a look - "bigger numbers" isn't always better. There's underlying reasons here that lead to a complex explanation - lol - but just trust me on this one. Remember Athlon / P4 - where these "weak" Athlons with low MHZ were burning P4's that were "twice as fast" number-wise? Exactly. Dual > Quad right now. Especially for games. If you want your 50 copies of firefox to run nice with Photoshop and a few MS Office apps - Quad's for you. If you game - Dual's for you. )
Intel Core2 = best current CPU out there.
Sadly.
I COULDN'T HAVE SAID IT BETTER MYSELF.
IMO That's an end-all to the debate. Go see the CPU Perfoamance for yourself. lol.
No need to listen to any IT professionals lol. We don't have pictures.
If you notice - the only things that are getting good scores on quads -
- Professional imaging programs designed for workstations (multicore systems)
- Experimental programs
- Benchmarks
All of which are not really anything that's going to do any of us any good.
http://xtreview.com/review212.htm
You know - now that I look even more at these benchmarks ...
I'm wondering why I've even considered an Intel.
:\ Hmm ...
For the $100.00 Amd X2 6000+ to get THAT close to a $1000.00 Core2 Emergency Edition -lol- is pathetic.
The only result with a big difference ... was a benchmark. Applications are what matter IMO - not benchmarks.
I dunno. All this new "intel hype" may be just that.
... I think I'll withdraw my statement that Intel's starting to get good.
AMD just got ... distracted.
They just got a huge influx of cash thanks to my bros out there in UAE/Dubai.
I'm expecting great things from AMD in the next couple years.
Might think about going to an X2 6400+
http://xtreview.com/images-added.php?image=images/amd-athlon-64-FX-74-splinter-cell.PNG&id=997
Hmm ... Interesting.
I've been good with my hardware since I bought smart the last time I upgraded. I haven't been paying much attention to the hardware market in the meantime.
This sounds like ...
Intel's P4 toying with benchmarks and designing their CPUs to perform like champs -
on benchmarks.
http://xtreview.com/images-added.php?image=images/amd-athlon-64-FX-74-doom3.PNG&id=997
Very close.
http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-9...s-core-2-Extreme-QX6700-benchmark-review.html
But if you look at the benchmarks - there's a big spread on most of them for the Intel - with Intel on top.
I dunno. With the prices the way they are - if you put enough power into that CPU and make it cost 2x as much to produce, well there's no wonder it's going to get that extra performance boost. This is going to be vanilla P4 all over again.
Whatever. AMD's been sticking it to Intel for a while now. Give AMD a year.
Intel's going down (again.)
When Duals were new - I bought 2 AMD FX55's - the BEST unicore my money could buy.
Those two systems are still running very strong today.
And we all know how old the FX55 is.
If I had put my money into a DUAL at that time - it would be garbage today.
You should, IMO, pump all your cash into the best DUAL your money can buy. You'll be much happier in the long run - when people (today) who are buying those brand-new quads are shopping for a NEW quad - while your DUAL is still running strong.
That's my $0.02 - after 15 years of building and buying PCs - I made the same mistakes everyone else is making - but a long time ago.
Listen to what I'm spouting - and you'll be a happier gamer.
Think Quad's going to do your gaming good - well - you'll be buying a new CPU in a year or two when you get sick of bad performance.
( Really - you should take a look - "bigger numbers" isn't always better. There's underlying reasons here that lead to a complex explanation - lol - but just trust me on this one. Remember Athlon / P4 - where these "weak" Athlons with low MHZ were burning P4's that were "twice as fast" number-wise? Exactly. Dual > Quad right now. Especially for games. If you want your 50 copies of firefox to run nice with Photoshop and a few MS Office apps - Quad's for you. If you game - Dual's for you. )
Intel Core2 = best current CPU out there.
Sadly.
I COULDN'T HAVE SAID IT BETTER MYSELF.
IMO That's an end-all to the debate. Go see the CPU Perfoamance for yourself. lol.
No need to listen to any IT professionals lol. We don't have pictures.
If you notice - the only things that are getting good scores on quads -
- Professional imaging programs designed for workstations (multicore systems)
- Experimental programs
- Benchmarks
All of which are not really anything that's going to do any of us any good.
http://xtreview.com/review212.htm
You know - now that I look even more at these benchmarks ...
I'm wondering why I've even considered an Intel.
:\ Hmm ...
For the $100.00 Amd X2 6000+ to get THAT close to a $1000.00 Core2 Emergency Edition -lol- is pathetic.
The only result with a big difference ... was a benchmark. Applications are what matter IMO - not benchmarks.
I dunno. All this new "intel hype" may be just that.
... I think I'll withdraw my statement that Intel's starting to get good. AMD just got ... distracted.
They just got a huge influx of cash thanks to my bros out there in UAE/Dubai.
I'm expecting great things from AMD in the next couple years.
Yep...Intel has the best quads right now from my point of view. I'm using a AMD Dual core right now but I'm planning to upgrade.
Might think about going to an X2 6400+
http://xtreview.com/images-added.php?image=images/amd-athlon-64-FX-74-splinter-cell.PNG&id=997
Hmm ... Interesting.
I've been good with my hardware since I bought smart the last time I upgraded. I haven't been paying much attention to the hardware market in the meantime.
This sounds like ...
Intel's P4 toying with benchmarks and designing their CPUs to perform like champs -
on benchmarks.
http://xtreview.com/images-added.php?image=images/amd-athlon-64-FX-74-doom3.PNG&id=997
Very close.
http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-9...s-core-2-Extreme-QX6700-benchmark-review.html
But if you look at the benchmarks - there's a big spread on most of them for the Intel - with Intel on top.
I dunno. With the prices the way they are - if you put enough power into that CPU and make it cost 2x as much to produce, well there's no wonder it's going to get that extra performance boost. This is going to be vanilla P4 all over again.
Whatever. AMD's been sticking it to Intel for a while now. Give AMD a year.
Intel's going down (again.)
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2008
- Messages
- 1,253
If you're just gaming, a higher clocked dual core will serve you better.
How has AMD been sticking it to Intel? They've been getting beat in the "high end" market. True, they have some of the cheapest dualies out there for a quick-down-home build, but nothing beats a QX9770 right now.
Though their new Denebs/Shanghai chips should be interesting.
Also, please don't think that I'm an Intel fanboy. I use an AMD chip/set in my HTPC and have always used ATI (owned by AMD) graphics cards.
~Gooda~
How has AMD been sticking it to Intel? They've been getting beat in the "high end" market. True, they have some of the cheapest dualies out there for a quick-down-home build, but nothing beats a QX9770 right now.
Though their new Denebs/Shanghai chips should be interesting.
Also, please don't think that I'm an Intel fanboy. I use an AMD chip/set in my HTPC and have always used ATI (owned by AMD) graphics cards.
~Gooda~
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2008
- Messages
- 18
I went from q6600(2.4ghz) to a E8500(3.16ghz), and without OCing the 8500 i saw a bit better performance in gmaes right off the bat. Since i have upgraded, i have OC'ed to 3.6 and upgraded graphics. However, if you are just gaming and such go Dual Core, i'd say E8400 / 8500 depending on the prices you can find them at.
Also as someone above said, future proofing with current tech. is a myth, since when most programmers decide to start using quad technology, or coding for more than a single/dual core setups, they will use current tech. not older technology, so invest with the Dual! and go intel.
Also as someone above said, future proofing with current tech. is a myth, since when most programmers decide to start using quad technology, or coding for more than a single/dual core setups, they will use current tech. not older technology, so invest with the Dual! and go intel.
Hey Depraved when you OC did you mess with any voltages or just the clocks? i have a E8500 and I want to OC it to 3.8 but i need to mess with the voltages but i heard people have gotten it up to 3.5 without messing with voltages. I just wanted to ask about some feedback.
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2008
- Messages
- 1,253
You'll need to mess with voltages for just about any OC.
~Gooda~
~Gooda~
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2008
- Messages
- 132
Ok its not when we decide to use quad technology, honestly, I've taken classes to write code for multiple CPU's and it is incredibly aggravating. Also, the .net's and Eclipses of the world really need to start making it easier for us to utilize the technology. It's not when we decide to start, but when everyone decides on some standards and puts them into applications we can use. Sorry, I'm a programmer and get annoyed by that kind of stuff....
Anyways, here's my 2 cents (about time eh?), Quad will not give you improvements unless, like mentioned above you are going with benchmarking, rendering, etc etc.
AMD vs. Intel, benchmarks are pretty much worthless, but since we need to quantify things, we use them. In real world scenarios, everything is so close it won't matter to the normal end user. Go with what you can get the best price on, make sure it's 45nm tech (trust me on that one), something around or over 3 Ghz (although that's becoming a useless stat also) and most of all, what ever you want to try. Have fun building your system, its the most important thing anyway!
Anyways, here's my 2 cents (about time eh?), Quad will not give you improvements unless, like mentioned above you are going with benchmarking, rendering, etc etc.
AMD vs. Intel, benchmarks are pretty much worthless, but since we need to quantify things, we use them. In real world scenarios, everything is so close it won't matter to the normal end user. Go with what you can get the best price on, make sure it's 45nm tech (trust me on that one), something around or over 3 Ghz (although that's becoming a useless stat also) and most of all, what ever you want to try. Have fun building your system, its the most important thing anyway!
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2008
- Messages
- 111
I'm talking about over the entire life of AMD -
They started out as a *meh* and turned into a nearly equal player.
Not to mention their chips have historically almost always been cheaper than comparable Intel chips.
And with the top CPUs out there, these so-called "high performance" ones - if you put a thousand dollars of cache in that chip, sure it's going to run faster.
But - on some of the game/app benchmarks I see out there - once either CPU gets a real load going on it (high res on a wide screen), they seem to even out really close - with a toss-up as to who is on top.
But the real black eye IMO - is a $100.00 AMD getting nearly the same performance as a $1000.00 Intel.
That's bad. That's very bad. That's pathetic.
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,266
That is the plan. AMD has announced that it will be out-sourcing it's fab process, so they're hoping to enter the 45nm ring soon. Hopefully this ends up being a good decision, but the general fear is there are now 2 companies to make mistakes in the process, as opposed to AMD doing all on their own before ;-)
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 1,610
Well here is my two cents!
From talking to other gamers and writing to editors of MaximumPC and SmartComputing magazines, Dual-Core compared to Quad Core; well, theres is really no differece in performance when it comes to gaming. Unless you do heavy video editing, dual-core is all you'll need.
And these game builders who install 2 to 4 video cards at the same time, is a total waste of money and performance while playing online. Yes, it will make a big difference when playing offline with you agains the computer. But all you need is a good, single card to achieve good performance while gaming online. And turning on all your settings on your video card for online gaming is also a waste of time. Unless you have a dedicated, fiber optic line connected to your computer pumping-out 20 gigs or more up and download, maxing out your video cards settings is a total waste for online gaming. And also, maxing-out your cards setting for playing online, will slow-up your frames-per-second and may cause higher pings for you.
I run dual video cards and compare it to others who run 3 or 4 video cards. Theres only a 10 to 15 percent difference in gaming offline. And online, it's all the same. I do video editing and I utilize the two video cards fully. But for online gaming purposes, one card is sufficient.
I hope this helps some of you in determining how many cards you need to play on or offline games.
One more thing to the over-clockers: Remember, over-clocking your processor(s) will diminish the life of the processor(s). Example: instead of getting 5 or more years of high quality performance from your processor, you'll cut it down to 2 to 3 years. Depending on how hard you over-clock it, before failure occurrs.
Peace to all and have a safe Halloween.
From talking to other gamers and writing to editors of MaximumPC and SmartComputing magazines, Dual-Core compared to Quad Core; well, theres is really no differece in performance when it comes to gaming. Unless you do heavy video editing, dual-core is all you'll need.
And these game builders who install 2 to 4 video cards at the same time, is a total waste of money and performance while playing online. Yes, it will make a big difference when playing offline with you agains the computer. But all you need is a good, single card to achieve good performance while gaming online. And turning on all your settings on your video card for online gaming is also a waste of time. Unless you have a dedicated, fiber optic line connected to your computer pumping-out 20 gigs or more up and download, maxing out your video cards settings is a total waste for online gaming. And also, maxing-out your cards setting for playing online, will slow-up your frames-per-second and may cause higher pings for you.
I run dual video cards and compare it to others who run 3 or 4 video cards. Theres only a 10 to 15 percent difference in gaming offline. And online, it's all the same. I do video editing and I utilize the two video cards fully. But for online gaming purposes, one card is sufficient.
I hope this helps some of you in determining how many cards you need to play on or offline games.
One more thing to the over-clockers: Remember, over-clocking your processor(s) will diminish the life of the processor(s). Example: instead of getting 5 or more years of high quality performance from your processor, you'll cut it down to 2 to 3 years. Depending on how hard you over-clock it, before failure occurrs.
Peace to all and have a safe Halloween.
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2008
- Messages
- 111
The foundry? I got a good feeling about it.
How has ATI fared since they stopped doing their own video cards?
(?)
Good, bad?
And mind you this - the "second company" is AMD - the same people who have ALWAYS been doing the manufacturing.
Except now - they're going to be taking custom orders, and AMD itself will focus purely on R&D and making good stuff.
Like I said - I'm just going leave intel over there, take a step back for a while and see what happens.
I expect to be impressed.
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2008
- Messages
- 21
My most recent builds have been Quad Core builds but those were never intended for gaming. (though they do game well if I wanted to use them for that) Honestly I'd drop whatever you've got to spend on a really good dual core processor now and when Quad Core becomes the norm upgrade. As it is right now Quad Core is just an option not really the norm.
- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Messages
- 2,159
what cpu ? A friend of mine OC'ed his dual core from 3.0 to 4.1GHz without liquid cooling...
