Dual core vs quad core.

E

EthanJM

Member
Hey, I recently found out my system can handle quad cores 95W and under. I browse the internet and read alot on my computer, but the only time I really put it to the test is when I am gaming. I have a 4200+ x2 right now, and I am going to upgrade soon to either a 6000+ x2 or a 9500+ x4. I have done reading and the jist of what I understand is that the raw speed is faster in dual core systems but quad cores are better multitaskers. On another note, I hear games in the near future may put four cpu's to use. I don't multitask that much other than a few open browsers which never seems to slow me down. But I do play alot of games.
What is your opinion? Are quad cores really slower for general purposes? Ultimately I will probably go for the dual seeing as it is 50 bucks cheaper and plenty fast enough, but if it is really worth it I will go quad.
Please give your opinion, maybe we can get a good discussion to start to help not only me, but everyone.
 
If I had to choose between those 2 CPU I would choose the X2 6000+

Main reason is the first gen phenoms really lacked on performance...also currently DC are the best for gaming and with luck this year there will be quad-supported games.

I think by July we will start seeing them but one can never know for sure.
 
2048Megabytes said:
What are your current video card specifications?

What is the model of your motherboard?
Click to expand...

I have a 9800GT 1gb, one of the fastest out there. Only 150 bucks on tigerdirect when I got it. It runs crysis almost all the way on full, but the card is so much stronger than the cpu that the cpu can overheat. I read about it, it is not just happening to me.
 
Twist86 said:
If I had to choose between those 2 CPU I would choose the X2 6000+

Main reason is the first gen phenoms really lacked on performance...also currently DC are the best for gaming and with luck this year there will be quad-supported games.

I think by July we will start seeing them but one can never know for sure.
Click to expand...

Yes, I hear that one or two of the cpu's will be dedicated to physics, ai, and so forth.
 
I would get the Quad, because (as I've said a thousand times before), the increased efficiency makes Phenoms faster clock-for-clock; therefore, the faster dual > slower quad argument doesn't hold all that much water as far as AMD is concerned. The Phenom 9550 (be sure to get a xx50 CPU) is clocked at 2.2GHz and roughly equals a 2.6-2.8GHz Athlon in single-threaded apps; any performance advantage an Athlon has over Phenom thanks to its significantly higher clockspeed is more than offset by the fact that you get double the cores (no background task is going the get in the way / cause lag; the general consensus is that even though a fast dual-core may give better framerates, a quad will give STABLE framerates and a lot smoother gameplay) and future games are going to be optimized for multiple cores anyways.

I would defintely pick a Phenom over an Athlon, and if price matters, consider a triple-core - they're virtually identical to Phenom quads, they just have one of the cores disabled. You'll get the significantly improved efficiency of the Phenom CPUs as well as the great multitasking capability at a lower price point. But if possible, by all means get the quad - it's well worth an extra $50.
 
hackapelite said:
I would get the Quad, because (as I've said a thousand times before), the increased efficiency makes Phenoms faster clock-for-clock; therefore, the faster dual > slower quad argument doesn't hold all that much water as far as AMD is concerned. The Phenom 9550 (be sure to get a xx50 CPU) is clocked at 2.2GHz and roughly equals a 2.6-2.8GHz Athlon in single-threaded apps; any performance advantage an Athlon has over Phenom thanks to its significantly higher clockspeed is more than offset by the fact that you get double the cores (no background task is going the get in the way / cause lag; the general consensus is that even though a fast dual-core may give better framerates, a quad will give STABLE framerates and a lot smoother gameplay) and future games are going to be optimized for multiple cores anyways.

I would defintely pick a Phenom over an Athlon, and if price matters, consider a triple-core - they're virtually identical to Phenom quads, they just have one of the cores disabled. You'll get the significantly improved efficiency of the Phenom CPUs as well as the great multitasking capability at a lower price point. But if possible, by all means get the quad - it's well worth an extra $50.
Click to expand...

I have heard testimony from multiple people on quad cores saying the game jumps terribly from good fps to bad fps. I guess you could just "set affinity" and disable two cores.
 
I have heard testimony from multiple people on quad cores saying the game jumps terribly from good fps to bad fps. I guess you could just "set affinity" and disable two cores.
Click to expand...
Either these people have had buggy systems, a stupid-virus infection or someone mixed something up... or they were all Intel boys. Intel quads and dualies (Core2) are based on the same architecture, meaning that the clock-for-clock performance is the same. Therefore, in poorly threaded games the dualie would be the clear winner, and the quad would probably be bogged down because of the low clockspeed. But as I said, AMDs dual-core and quad-core lineups are based on vastly different architectures (except for the recently introduced Athlon X2 7***-series that are based on Phenoms), the quad-cores being significantly more effective; an Athlon would have to be clocked signifantly higher (20% at very least, sometimes even 30%) to beat the Phenom in single-threaded applications.
 
hackapelite said:
Either these people have had buggy systems, a stupid-virus infection or someone mixed something up... or they were all Intel boys. Intel quads and dualies (Core2) are based on the same architecture, meaning that the clock-for-clock performance is the same. Therefore, in poorly threaded games the dualie would be the clear winner, and the quad would probably be bogged down because of the low clockspeed. But as I said, AMDs dual-core and quad-core lineups are based on vastly different architectures (except for the recently introduced Athlon X2 7***-series that are based on Phenoms), the quad-cores being significantly more effective; an Athlon would have to be clocked signifantly higher (20% at very least, sometimes even 30%) to beat the Phenom in single-threaded applications.
Click to expand...

Maybe so, I guess the best thing I can do is what I have been doing for awhile now, and that is research. Every opinion matters.
The next two games I am looking into are far cry 2 and grand theft auto 4.
 
Here check this out.
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000942.html

Towards the bottom it shows some games tested on both cpu types.
But these games are a little older, so I don't know how important you could count it.

*EDIT*
The 9500+ x4 is actually pretty cheap, my system handles up to the 9650+ x4.
But check this link out for the 9500+ x4, look at the reviews. There are a few people claiming their dual core was faster. On the other hand there was alot of good reviews.
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicat...tails.asp?EdpNo=3476410&csid=ITD&body=REVIEWS
Something tells me that quads are still buggy. I would only have to pay 10 bucks more and I think I still might go for the dual.
 
Last edited:
Everyone on this forum probably already knows this but the Phenom Quad and Triple Core processors are faster than the Athlon Dual-Cores because of the extra cache and extra cores (processors).
 
EthanJM said:
The 9500+ x4 is actually pretty cheap, my system handles up to the 9650+ x4.
But check this link out for the 9500+ x4, look at the reviews. There are a few people claiming their dual core was faster. On the other hand there was alot of good reviews.
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicat...tails.asp?EdpNo=3476410&csid=ITD&body=REVIEWS
Something tells me that quads are still buggy. I would only have to pay 10 bucks more and I think I still might go for the dual.
Click to expand...

The Phenom processors that don't end with a "B" or "50" had issues with them. I would avoid them and only purchase the later Phenoms.

There are no issues with the Phenom II processors (other than being power hungry beasts) or the Phenom models ending in 50.
 
Last edited:
Everyone on this forum probably already knows this but the Phenom Quad and Triple Core processors are faster than the Athlon Dual-Cores because of the extra cache and extra cores (processors).
Click to expand...
It's not just the extra cache, the architecure has been vastly improved, and even in single-threaded apps Phenoms are faster than Athlons.

The Phenom processors that don't end with a "B" or "50" had issues with them. I would avoid them and only purchase the later Phenoms.
Click to expand...
Yep. Phenom xx00 (B2) CPUs had the notorious TLB bug and those thing were, in general, rushed out of the door... the B3 stepping Phenoms (xx50) don't have this bug and the architecture has beel slightly refined.
 
All I have been saying is there must be a reason that so many people complain about quad cores. It is not small groups of people but many people. And I have done plenty of reading from really educated people explaining that the duals are faster but the quads handle more. Think of it like speed verses endurance.
I guess if I get a quad it would be the 9650+ x4, but I really hate making mistakes with so much money.
 
Just so you also know, you may have to flash the BIOS on your motherboard to get it to work with a Phenom Quad-Core processor.

Generally Dual-Cores run video games well presently because some games are written to run with Dual-Core processors and most run at a higher clock speed than Quad-Cores. You are right that Quad-Cores multi-task (run multiple programs) better than Dual-Core processors.
 
2048Megabytes said:
Just so you also know, you may have to flash the BIOS on your motherboard to get it to work with a Phenom Quad-Core processor.

Generally Dual-Cores run video games well presently because some games are written to run with Dual-Core processors and most run at a higher clock speed than Quad-Cores. You are right that Quad-Cores multi-task (run multiple programs) better than Dual-Core processors.
Click to expand...


I talked to asus and according to them all I need is the right bios version which can be downloaded on their site. I already have the right version though, so I could just pop it in there and start it back up. I thought I would have to flash it myself but I guess not. On the cpu support for my motherboard the 9850+ x4 is also on there, but my board is a 95W and anything above the 9650+ x4 is a 125W.
I thought I would be able to run the 7750+ x2 but I guess the fsb is out of my range. I still don't fully understand the whole fsb issue. My boards fsb is 2000/1600.
 
Motherboards that support Advance Micro Devices Processors don't use Front Side Bus (FSB), they use HyperTransport. Front Side Bus is used by many Intel processors, but it is also being replaced by a technology called Quick Path Interconnect (QPI) in newer processors.

Here is the definition of HyperTransport:

AMD has also created HyperTransport technology. This technology is a faster speed point-to-point link designed to increase the communication speed between integrated circuits in computers. HyperTransport technology helps reduce the number of buses in a system, which can reduce system bottlenecks and enable today's processors to use system memory more efficiently in high-end multiprocessor systems.

There is one Phenom Quad-Core processor that is 95 Watt over the 9650. The Phenom 9750 has a 95 Watt version and a 125 Watt.
 
2048Megabytes said:
Motherboards that support Advance Micro Devices Processors don't use Front Side Bus (FSB), they use HyperTransport. Front Side Bus is used by many Intel processors, but it is also being replaced by a technology called Quick Path Interconnect (QPI) in newer processors.

Here is the definition of HyperTransport:

AMD has also created HyperTransport technology. This technology is a faster speed point-to-point link designed to increase the communication speed between integrated circuits in computers. HyperTransport technology helps reduce the number of buses in a system, which can reduce system bottlenecks and enable today's processors to use system memory more efficiently in high-end multiprocessor systems.

There is one Phenom Quad-Core processor that is 95 Watt over the 9650. The Phenom 9750 has a 95 Watt version and a 125 Watt.
Click to expand...

Hmm, didn't know that. Well tigerdirect told me that I could not run the
7750+ x2, and it is not under my cpu support. And thanks for telling me about the 95W version of the 9750+ x4, I never would have known about it. I think I will get the 6000+ x2 though.
 
All I have been saying is there must be a reason that so many people complain about quad cores. It is not small groups of people but many people. And I have done plenty of reading from really educated people explaining that the duals are faster but the quads handle more. Think of it like speed verses endurance.
Click to expand...
How recent has this "research" been? A year ago, or even just half a year ago, the faster dual > slower quad would've been a valid argument, so if you're looking at old sources...

Anyway, if you're getting the 6000+ X2... how much cheaper is it? There's no point paying much more than half of the price of the quad, but if the price is right, by all means go for it. I would go for the newer Brisbane. It only has half the cache but it's a newer stepping and has a higher stock clock which at least partially makes up for tha smaller cache, and it's 65nm and therefore runs cooler so if you're looking for a slight OC, this would be better (AMD's 65nm process was rushed and while this CPU probably won't clock much -or any in the worst case- higher than an equal 90nm CPU would, it'll certainly run much cooler so you don't need to resort to extremely fancy cooling).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top