Quad core or dual core ?

Kilauea · 12-17-2007, 08:05 PM

Who would have thought there would be such "debate" over quad vs dual... As for what I think... Obviously Dual is enough for what most people do nowdays and over the years, as usual, other applications will come out and will be more demanding, possibly too much for a little Q6600, but that quad core would still be handling it better than a E6850...

ride3k · 12-17-2007, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by [-0MEGA-]

Quad-cores perform better when someone is using multiple demanding applications at the same time, or using one of the select few programs that utilize more then 2 cores.

If all you're worried about is gaming, then for now the E6850 is the best choice.

thank for someone actually reading what i wrote. I game, thats it. I need a fast CPU, i do not need four cores b/c i run a game, and thats it. If i ran a game, and anything else in the background, maybe sacrificing the speed for more cores would be worth it, but to ME it is not, thats why im a dual core fan boy, it gets what I want DONE and faster than any quadcore at the moment, bar of course the $1000 brand new 45nm.

ride3k · 12-17-2007, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kornowski

Here it is in 'normal', for us simple folk

... Just imagine Quad Core on the end there!

see the two colored balls? that means two different apps, not one app running multi-threaded, I am talking about one app running single threaded, at most running dual threaded

Motoxrdude · 12-17-2007, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ride3k

thank for someone actually reading what i wrote. I game, thats it. I need a fast CPU, i do not need four cores b/c i run a game, and thats it. If i ran a game, and anything else in the background, maybe sacrificing the speed for more cores would be worth it, but to ME it is not, thats why im a dual core fan boy, it gets what I want DONE and faster than any quadcore at the moment, bar of course the $1000 brand new 45nm.

So uh, what game requires that fast of a cpu?

ride3k · 12-17-2007, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Motoxrdude

So uh, what game requires that fast of a cpu?

CPU speed will always affect your game FPS until you hit the next bottle neck. My point is if i had to spend 280 on a CPU, I would go dual core b/c it benefits me more than a quadcore RIGHT NOW. I would never dream of spending that much on a CPU though, I dont need that much out of the box speed, especially when I can get e2180's to 3.4 on air, for 200 dollars less, for games at this point in time speed > quadcore, and it will remain that way for at least the next 6 months

Motoxrdude · 12-17-2007, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ride3k

CPU speed will always affect your game FPS until you hit the next bottle neck. My point is if i had to spend 280 on a CPU, I would go dual core b/c it benefits me more than a quadcore RIGHT NOW. I would never dream of spending that much on a CPU though, I dont need that much out of the box speed, especially when I can get e2180's to 3.4 on air, for 200 dollars less, for games at this point in time speed > quadcore, and it will remain that way for at least the next 6 months

People put way to much focus on CPUs for games. Yeah having a x6850 would be nice, it is not practical. A core2duo e6600 will play any games out today with a good 120fps with a good video card. Just saying for around the same price, i would go with the 6600 quad core vs. dual core.

Kornowski · 12-17-2007, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mep916

ha ha. Exactly.

layman's terms!

Quote:

Originally Posted by ride3k

see the two colored balls? that means two different apps, not one app running multi-threaded, I am talking about one app running single threaded, at most running dual threaded

Right, Yeah, I see them now... Sorry colour deficiant

Well, if you're after gaming power, then obviously Quad Core would be the way, because if it's multi core threaded, obviously four is better than two, right, do the math.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Motoxrdude

People put way to much focus on CPUs for games. Yeah having a x6850 would be nice, it is not practical. A core2duo e6600 will play any games out today with a good 120fps with a good video card. Just saying for around the same price, i would go with the 6600 quad core vs. dual core.

Exactly! The price difference is that small, you'd be stupid not to go quad now!

**mep916** · 12-17-2007, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Motoxrdude

Just saying for around the same price, i would go with the 6600 quad core vs. dual core.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kornowski

Exactly! The price difference is that small, you'd be stupid not to go quad now!

That's generally how I feel.

You can achieve the speed of a dual core ≤ to the E6850 with a Q6600 overclocked. In fact, some have taken the Q6600 as high as 3.7 GHz on air.

The_Beast · 12-17-2007, 10:57 PM

ride3k · 12-17-2007, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kornowski

Exactly! The price difference is that small, you'd be stupid not to go quad now!

Quote:

Originally Posted by mep916

That's generally how I feel.

You can achieve the speed of a dual core ≤ to the E6850 with a Q6600 overclocked. In fact, some have taken the Q6600 as high as 3.7 GHz on air.

just b/c you feel not going quad is the wrong move does not make it so. to me, going quad is a waste, b/c i will not use those extra two cores for at least a year, why would i spend the money on an old processor when i can spend the same amount of money on a faster, newer processor?

choosing between quad and dual is complete opinion, both offer their respective benefits (bang per buck or multi threaded freedom) and the ultimate use of the computer should decide what is chosen. I choose dual core, I will continue to choose dual core until i need more core's on my CPU, just b/c I don't need and will not utilize the $280 quadcore does not mean I am stupid in choosing dual core

12-17-2007, 08:05 PM	#21 (permalink)
Kilauea Gold Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Canada Age: 24 Posts: 412	Who would have thought there would be such "debate" over quad vs dual... As for what I think... Obviously Dual is enough for what most people do nowdays and over the years, as usual, other applications will come out and will be more demanding, possibly too much for a little Q6600, but that quad core would still be handling it better than a E6850... __________________ 5½ years old rig ? P4 1.7Ghz MSI MS-6547E 768mb RAM ATI Radeon 7200 40Gb Seagate HDD w/ Xp 7Gb Maxtor HDD w/ Linux TigerPlus 300 Watt PSU (never heard of such company) Broken LG CD-rom drive that seems to work sometimes

12-17-2007, 10:57 PM	#29 (permalink)
The_Beast Diamond Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Wisconsin Age: 16 Posts: 3,299	quad __________________ Rendering Machine - Gigabyte DS3L P35 - - C2D E6550 - - Corsair XMS2 2Gb - Seagate 'Cuda 320Gb - Sapphire 2600 XT 256mb - - Antec Earthwatt 430 watt - - Antec New Solution Series Case - - Hp w1907 monitor - Check Out My Custom Clock Picture 1/\Picture 2

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Dual Channel???	kostas	Computer Memory and Hard Drives	1	08-10-2007 08:24 PM
Buyers Guide - Choosing A Processor	thecustompc_com	CPUs and Overclocking	11	07-05-2006 12:11 AM
do i really need dual core?	Alx717	CPUs and Overclocking	2	07-02-2006 11:11 PM
Dual Core????	Zeus2005	Desktop Computers	10	03-24-2006 04:21 PM
Dual Channel Memory with a Dual Core Processor?	Ctcoyote16	Desktop Computers	3	11-10-2005 01:22 AM