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...
Quad core or dual core ?
- Thread starter CodeMinion
- Start date
[-0MEGA-];844488 said:
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.
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
Active Member
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
Active Member
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
VIP Member
ha ha. Exactly.
layman's terms!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.
Exactly! The price difference is that small, you'd be stupid not to go quad now!
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.
Exactly! The price difference is that small, you'd be stupid not to go quad now!
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
Kornowski
VIP Member
butttt its not... not for equally matched CPU's it isnt