Quad and Dual core

lubo4444

lubo4444

Active Member
Hey guys can anybody tell me what's the difference between quad and dual core and which one is worth to buy if you plan to make a gaming system?
 
This thread is supposed to be in the CPU section...

Aaaaaand....this question has been asked numerous times...

use search...
 
use the search button man there are a hundred threads about this

quad core = four processing cores

dual core = two processing cores

in the same price range, dual cores will have two cores running at faster speeds, and quads will have four cores running at slower speeds. for gaming, most people agree a faster dual core is better. most people will agree that quad cores are more future proof, but others will say that by the time you can really make use of a quad core they will be so cheap that you can just replace your dual core....idk.

you wont be disappointed with either choice, but please use the search button
 
The main difference is obvious being a second pair of cores added into the design of the cpu. The main idea is to see more capability for multitasking like you expect with a dual core over a single cored cpu in general.

Many have gone with AMD Phenom quad cores while others have gone with Intel's. Yet some will prefer a dual core from either for things like ocing and what they feel is a better performer. Here I was hoping to see an AMD quad go into this build for the work horse type build here but saw AMD late. A 3ghz dual core works for gaming as well as multasking on the primarily stock run system.
 
That will help often when trying to simply find some info or a link. Generally you want to select the best section suited for the topic when starting a new thread. But some were a little more impulsive here. Next time I think you will be ok however.
 
Yeah i'll be fine next time :) thanks again :) now i jsut have to figure out which processor i would like to get to build a system... :) i'm going mainly for gaming but i also want to have the system strong for games that will come later on...
 
just get the dual core, unless you can afford one of the high end quads ($700+). by the time any application can use all four cores, the q6600 is going to be so outdated anyway
 
Have a look at this thread - http://www.computerforum.com/131165-question-about-processing-speed.html

This quote is from the thread and it is a good way of explaining it.

jdbennet said:
think of it like a factory

in the old days they had one long, pretty fast converyor belt
now they have a number of teams doing the work.

the old converyor belt was faster but it meant you could only assemble one thing at the same time.

the team based approach is physicallyslower, but better and doing more than one thing at once

this is how it is with dual core. Anyway, you cant even compare clock speeds because the cores are so much more effiicient than the netburst cpus. A Core Solo 1.8ghz can outperform a 3ghz Pentium 4.
Click to expand...
 
You'll find now that newer games and programs are going to be looking at a dual core cpu as the standard. With a tuner card replacement just put in the system test tool specifies a need for a 3ghz dual core cpu! The one in use is 3.1ghz.
 
cohen said:
Have a look at this thread - http://www.computerforum.com/131165-question-about-processing-speed.html

This quote is from the thread and it is a good way of explaining it.
Click to expand...

that analogy only works if there is a way to assemble ONE product on MULTIPLE assembly lines. in the programming world, there are very few programs right now that actually do that. regardless if you have a single, dual, or quad core CPU, your halflife2 or whatever is only going to use one of the cores...
 
Or in the case of a quad two of the cores being the primary. When multitasking and placing a good load with more then one thing running then you will see the secondary on either dual or quad cored cpus kick in to take up the slack when the primary is getting bogged down.

The best application even now for quads while many are jumping at the new desktop models still sees the server/work station rather then stand alone desktop. That's a constant load compared to the periodic load a desktop sees.
 
You'll be far better then going backwards to a single core. If you want to run any newer games on the build you have planned. everything now pretty much expects a dual core for that type of software.
 
Yeah i'm looking into dual core i searched for other threads too and saw other topics about that and most of the people prefer dual core instead of quad... :) and i dont even want to talk about single it's out of my mind :)
 
The quads are rather new while AMD lagged behind Intel at first seeing their twin FX-74s for using two dual core cpus on a board. The main reason for seeing more favoring a dual core over a quad is mainly gaming where dual performs for that while a quad is more of a work horse orientated type.
 
but do you think that a quad would be so dissapointing in gaming than a dual core?

i mean how much of a difference will there be? couple fps? lots?

i game-i use a q6600 and everything runs very smooth!

i am not a quad fan boy as ive own'd a few dual cores and just bought another just curious as to the difference
 
It depends on what model dual core you end up comparing a particular quad model to. The main difference seen here came when moving out of a Atholon 3500+ 2.2ghz single core 939 model on the last build into a 6000+ X2 3ghz. dual core AM2 model for this build.

Despite the second core the obvious cpu clock speed saw a giant leap overall since the secondary core remains idle until a heavy load is seen. Both versions of Windows startup and run faster while gaming tends to remain about the same however. Video and sound cards especially over onboard tend to see the actual gains performance wise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top