Dual vs quad
- Thread starter earthE
- Start date
Quad Core all the way,Imo there really isnt any reason not to get a Quad core these days because you can pick one up such as the Athlon II X4 635 Propus 2.9GHz quite cheap at around $99 which i think is a great deal and then you can Overclock it!
Not only that more games are optimised and perform better on Quad core cpus.
Not only that more games are optimised and perform better on Quad core cpus.
Last edited:
2048Megabytes
Active Member
Even if you don't overclock a quad-core processor is better for your money. A processor is the brain of the computer. It is the component in which most processing in a computer takes place. A dual-core processor housing only contains two processors while a quad-core processor has four. More cores means the ability of a system to do more than one thing at a time.
The AMD Athlon II 635 Propus Quad-Core is a good processor for $99 as Nevakonaza said.
Here also is a good triple core processor:
AMD Phenom II 740 Black Edition Heka (3.0 gigahertz) Triple-Core Processor - $95
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103699
COOLER MASTER DK9-7E52A-0L-GP Heatsink and Fan - $14
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835103087
The AMD Athlon II 635 Propus Quad-Core is a good processor for $99 as Nevakonaza said.
Here also is a good triple core processor:
AMD Phenom II 740 Black Edition Heka (3.0 gigahertz) Triple-Core Processor - $95
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103699
COOLER MASTER DK9-7E52A-0L-GP Heatsink and Fan - $14
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835103087
FuryRosewood
Active Member
if we were talking a few years ago when prices were higher for a quad core chip, i would say stick with the dual. however with prices falling on quads so far id say if you have the money, just grab a quad, you honestly do not need to OC it if you arent doing anything uber cpu intensive. even the stock heatsinks on the amd side are not so bad, my friend just picked up a 635 and hes reporting pretty low temps, i think hes hitting around 35C @ load. not sure how cool it is in his dorm tho. but yes, for your money, more cores are a good thing, and often having the load spread out across those cores can keep your temps lower as well.
Benny Boy
Active Member
depends on what youre going to do. as mentioned you cant go wrong with a 4-core, unless you need 6. but would the 3rd and/or 4th core ever be utilized? that would be detrmined by it's intended use. if you only need 2 or 3 cores, then you could get L3 cashe for about the same $.
if unsure, pic cores over cashe.
if unsure, pic cores over cashe.
Last edited:
TristanPerry
New Member
A budget option could be something like the i3 530 which is a dual physical core with two additional logical cores, although overall I'd definitely go for a quad core.
As others have said, a quad will be more future proofed plus you can get them for a pretty good price nowadays.
As others have said, a quad will be more future proofed plus you can get them for a pretty good price nowadays.
Aastii
VIP Member
Depends what you need your computer for. If it is web browsing, office work, movies, music, light gaming etc, then save your money and go for a dual core, you won't get anything out of using a quad core.
If you are gaming, a tri or quad core, but again, tri would be the better option because no games see a massive advantage with the extra core, and you would be saving money.
If you are compiling programs, rendering, number crunching, making music, basically multi-threaded CPU intensive things, then a quad or hex core would be better.
I don't think a system should go by budget, but by means. It is all well and good saying "I have $2000 to spend on a system for browsing the web", but a $500 system would do that just as well with lesser components
If you are gaming, a tri or quad core, but again, tri would be the better option because no games see a massive advantage with the extra core, and you would be saving money.
If you are compiling programs, rendering, number crunching, making music, basically multi-threaded CPU intensive things, then a quad or hex core would be better.
I don't think a system should go by budget, but by means. It is all well and good saying "I have $2000 to spend on a system for browsing the web", but a $500 system would do that just as well with lesser components
Benny Boy
Active Member
thanks for expounding.
computeruler
New Member
Duals are great for general use and all that, and even a lot of games. But more and more games are starting to use quads if thats what you do.
memory
Member
If you were to buy a processor mainly for doing typical office work and no gaming, would you buy a dual or a quad?
I am looking to buy a new processor for my old rig and maybe give it to my dad who just does basic office stuff, he does not multi-task real heavy. Which would be better, a e8500 or a q6600? I will probably leave it at stock speeds.
I am looking to buy a new processor for my old rig and maybe give it to my dad who just does basic office stuff, he does not multi-task real heavy. Which would be better, a e8500 or a q6600? I will probably leave it at stock speeds.
I would get an I3 530 actually, they are sweet.
But an E8500 would be way plenty for those tasks and run much cooler than a q6600.
For single threaded apps, a higher clocked dual core is going to win everytime.
Aastii
VIP Member
E8500 because of price, and because as 87dtna says, for single threaded applications, the dual core is going to outperform the lower clocked quad
An E8500 is going for about the same as a Q6600 these days. Around $100-110.
But because a Q6600 is two conroe 65nm core 2 duos on one die with 4mb cache each VS a wolfdale 45nm duo with 6mb L2. Wolfdale is faster clock for clock already, but the E8500 is clocked much higher too. It would be a noticeable gain going from a Q6600 to an E8500 for a single threaded apps PC.
But because a Q6600 is two conroe 65nm core 2 duos on one die with 4mb cache each VS a wolfdale 45nm duo with 6mb L2. Wolfdale is faster clock for clock already, but the E8500 is clocked much higher too. It would be a noticeable gain going from a Q6600 to an E8500 for a single threaded apps PC.
Aastii
VIP Member
memory
Member
Where are you seeing e8500's and q6600's for $110? Most places I looked are around $150 to 200. Unless you are talking about used ones, I am only looking at new ones. I forgot to mention I was looking at retail processors. Are those prices for oem processors?
Heck, most oem e8500 processors I looked at are higher than the retail version.
Last edited:
2048Megabytes
Active Member
Brand new Core 2 Duo E8500 and E8400 processors are not worth it. I cannot believe anyone would pay $170 for a dual-core processor. You can get an Intel Core 2 Quad for the same price as Core 2 Duo E8500 and E8400.
Where are you finding a new Q6600??? Intel hasn't produced them for years.
Both used prices. As 2048megabytes said, new prices of an E8500 are insane. At $110 they really aren't worth that either, the only way is if you have a really good setup and don't want to completely upgrade to a different socket yet.
Last edited: