2 or 4 Cores, Intel

D

Die Auslese

I made one post
Joined
Nov 18, 2007
Messages
21
I'm thinking of replaceing my Processer, simply becuase I have an old AMD 4000+ (single core). Heres the thing when I looked at processer I founed what I wanted, an Intel. Now I know I'll have to replace RAM and the Motherbored, however heres what got me.

Intel® Core™ 2 Quad Q6600 @ 2.4GHz 1066FSB 8MB L2 Cache 64-bit
Intel® Core™ 2 Duo E6850 CPU @ 3.00GHz 1333FSB 4MB L2 Cache 64-bit

Thier the same price, however one has 2 cores and one has 4 cores, I'm still unsure as to which processer to get, so I was wondering any surgestions......
 
Depending on what you want to do... I would say the quad core. Although 600mhz seems like a lot it wont make that much difference in games maybe 10% tops in some CPU heavy games (depending on the res you run @)

I would get the quad to speed up multitasking and to have a more future-proof processing platform. For instance theres a game coming out this year called Alan Wake which takes full advantage of every core a cpu contains. So theres definitely progress.

But 3ghz and 1333 fsb is tough to say no too haha. Cant really go wrong either way.
 
Until quad-core processors are more stable and supported, I'd go with a dual-core from either brand. Quad-core processors put out a lot of heat right now, as did all the dual-cores back when they started. They're also prone to causing glitches, and so far, perform no better in gaming than dual-cores.. Slower, on some, as not many things are currently capable of effectively utilizing all four cores (which are needed to run at that rated 2.4 GHz).

Plus, most of the motherboards that support quad-core processors are still in that "experimental" stage and a lot of them end up being faulty.

Dual-core processors are more than most people need right now, even hardcore gamers. TF2 runs at 50+ FPS on an Athlon 64 3500+ with a GeForce 7800.
 
I'll take the advise of Ephyu. And get a nice motherboard that will handle the new processors in a very near future.
 
Thx, I mean it gives me a heads up, that either processer performance wise is a good choice, and that the quad core is still kinda unstable, you know I'll wait about 2 months and see what happans as far as price and advancment, I think my old AMD still has some kick in it. Goood advice thx. Keep posting on your opinon.
 
There is no point to getting a quad-core. Get dual-core, it will be able to handle a great deal, unless of course you plan on running an operating system emulator, and playing games on that.
 
I was in the same place when I was upgrading my computer, quadcore support is still buggy, got with dualcore my friend, go with the flow.
 
I've been running that quad for a couple of months now and it's great! I haven't had any bugginess or problems..
 
[quote1199220335=CiDVicious]
I've been running that quad for a couple of months now and it's great! I haven't had any bugginess or problems..
[/quote1199220335]

We don't say that quad cores are bad, it's just for gaming are no very suitable because there's no games developed to take advantage of 4 cpus; I'm a video editor and CG animator, in my work I use an octo mac pro (2 quad core xeon) with windows xp running cinema 4d and after effects and works great for pro apps but when I try playing tf2 the cpu's got nuts, sometimes 1 cpu is working at high capacity or 4 cpu's got to 100% and can't open tf2, valve support says that some quad or octo cpus have problems with some source powered games. For gaming, quad core still is no a very good option.
 
Even if your one quad core is working fine right now, who's to say it's going to work correctly on all systems, with all configurations, in any motherboard, with any drivers and parts? You may have gotten lucky and gotten a perfectly good one and put it with parts and drivers that are all working fine with it, and have only been using programs that accept it.

However, many people are having problems, just as some had problems with dual-core processors when they started. Or the early 64 bit processors (had plenty of experience there). The early models always put out excessive amounts of heat, have shorter lifespans, and are more prone to defects, bugs, and incompatibilities than their later, more refined versions. I'd say wait 'til they're out at least a year before going for quad-core processors. That's about how long it took for more refined dual-cores to appear, and it'll take at least that long for programs to even begin to support them.

...Even then, I'm not so sure most games will benefit from four cores, considering each individual core is a lot slower and weaker than the cores in a dual or single core. There are a few that promise they will take full advantage of every core a processor has, but for the moment, I think it's more of a gimmick than a serious concern for gamers. Don't base a central part of your computer around something only a few programs or games will be capable of utilizing effectively over the next few years. This is the same reason I tell people not to get PhysX cards for a while unless they have the extra cash to blow and want to see that tiny bit of performance increase in one of the few games that supports it (most of which actually get more than enough processing done with an old single-core).
 
I thought you might want to read this........I think I am going dual core. I think as long as your mobo has LGA 775 socket then you could do dual now then get quad later when it is needed (more programs and games)....This is my current plan...Hopefully this has helped you.....


[blockquote]Arguably the most popular CPU right now, the quad-core Q6600 once again stakes its claim as one of the best bang-for-the-buck options. You can get similarly priced quad-core courtesy of the Phenom 9500 (2.2GHz), but with the Q6600 generally besting even the not-yet-available Phenom 9900 (2.6GHz) we see no reason to go that route, unless you already have an AM2 motherboard and don't mind second-class performance. This is perhaps the final hurrah for the Q6600, as the faster, slimmer, and more overclocking friendly Q9450 is due out in January of next year. That may necessitate the purchase of a Penryn compatible motherboard, however, so if you don't feel like waiting there's still plenty to like with the Q6600.

There's still a shortage of software that benefits from more than two cores; however video encoding, 3D rendering, and certain other tasks will appreciate the extra cores. It may be some time yet before games truly benefit from quad-core, but for $260 you can be ready today for whatever CPU requirements the software of tomorrow brings. If you don't mind overclocking, with appropriate cooling we've also hit over 3.4GHz. Just don't look too closely at the power use of the CPU when you're overclocked that far. Alternately, if you don't want to overclock but you still want improved CPU performance for dual-core applications, consider the E6850. Clocked at 3.0GHz and priced only slightly higher than the Q6600 ($276), for games you will still end up with better performance and less power use by going the dual-core route. (E6550 and E6750 are also reasonable options, naturally.) If you want more than the Q6600, we wouldn't bother with the Q6700. At roughly twice the price, we'd recommend a minor overclock first.[/blockquote]

Quoted from Anandtech.com [link=hyperlink url]http://www.anandtech.com/guides/showdoc.aspx?i=3157&p=2[/link]
 
I have quad, got it pretty much 'cause I wanted it to last at least awhile. I do have to say though, it is rare that I see it being 'maxed'.
 
with the games coming out in 08 like FAR CRY 2 (insert heavenly noises from here, saw it at pax and it was amazing) I'd go with a quad core. Though dual cores may be tested more throughly the software coming in the near future will utilize quad core. So save the cash an just get a quad core now.
 
Whoa! Tank were did you get that, thats like a trump card for almost everything everyone has said. I still think wating a couple months to see devlopments should provide the real answer, will Intel improve thier Quad cores or thier Duel cores?!?!
 
Meh.

I watch my second core idle through most gaming sessions.

I really loath that "Buy faster now, so you won't need to spend money later" advertising pitch. My current motherboard could handle a quad core, but by the time games really start making use of the cores everything on the motherboard will be obsolete or near-obsolete. I don't know about you guys, but that's the point in the story where that box gets replaced entirely.

Software developers aren't going to start making games quad-core compatible until a reasonable portion of the market is running quad-core. Why would they waste the money on programming yet another layer onto their software otherwise?

Really though, what it comes down to is how much disposable income you have. I've got a dual core and I can run every game I have at max detail, with uTorrent going and a movie playing on my second monitor. If that isn't good enough for you or you have a load of spare cash, go quad. Otherwise, spend that extra dough somewhere else. My goal when building or upgrading a box is to minimize bottlenecking, no matter how powerful your CPU is- your game will still run poorly if something else is bottlenecked.
 
I have the Q6600 and I haven't had any glitches whatsoever with it, so I'm not sure what people are talking about here.

Vista Ultimate uses them all. Even though it doesn't come close to fully utilizing it lol.

All of the LGA 775 boards will fully support them unless you get one that's been in the back of the store room for a long time.

It runs rock solid and will run anything that I throw at it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top