Dual vs. Quad

[mnelson07]

Sorry to bring this up again, but I think I'm going to make a valid point that I haven't seen yet in this debate.

I'm preparing to buy a new computer; as I was putting together a wish list on Newegg, I started to ponder about Quad vs. Dual and it's pros and cons.

The Q6600 is obviously a great processor hands down. But most decent dual cores tend to beat it. Now, this isn't the processor's fault since no (not many at least) game or applications utilizes four cores. Because of this two cores are just waiting to be "unleashed" and has excess power. Even so it still performs almost just as well as the dual core so most people think, "similar price, about same performance, plus two more cores to make it more futureproof."

That makes sense, but what about this; since quad cores really aren't being utilized currently, go dual core. Use up both cores to their advantage and outperform a quadcore. Sure you won't have the futureproof two extra cores, but you get what you pay for. Unless of course you are doing audio/video editing in which case the obvious choice is the quad core. But from my experience on these forums, most people simply game. My major debate on this side is this: By the time quad cores become more streamlined in games and applications and will actually utilize them, there will be another, much better, quad core processor on the market for about the same price you bought the, now outdated quad core processor.

In conclusion, buy a dual core and get the most out of it. Wait for quad cores to become utilized, the technology to increase, and then buy a better performing, cheaper quad core.

[Raziel-Zero]

Who says a Dual Core will outperform a Q6600. With a G0 it's not too hard to push it to 3.6 or the like.

Of course let us not forget the Cache size difference.

[mnelson07]

Originally Posted by Raziel-Zero

Who says a Dual Core will outperform a Q6600. With a G0 it's not too hard to push it to 3.6 or the like.

Of course let us not forget the Cache size difference.

Let's say without overclocking.

[BlueHeaven]

When you run mulitple applications at once (active Virus Scanner, Mp3 player, IE, Photoshop) will it do processing on more than one core per application if needed, even though a single application it self will not use more than one core?

Edit:

Even without a multithread-enabled application, you will still see benefits of dual-core processors if you are running an OS that supports TLP. For example, if you have Microsoft Windows XP (which supports multithreading), you could have your Internet browser open along with a virus scanner running in the background, while using Windows Media Player to stream your favorite radio station and the dual-core processor will handle the multiple threads of these programs running simultaneously with an increase in performance and efficiency.

Now this talks about dual cores, but it applies just as well to the quad cores.

[mnelson07]

Originally Posted by BlueHeaven

When you run mulitple applications at once (active Virus Scanner, Mp3 player, IE, Photoshop) will it do processing on more than one core per application if needed, even though a single application it self will not use more than one core?

Edit:



Now this talks about dual cores, but it applies just as well to the quad cores.

I don't believe a quad core would outperform a dual core in this instance. I don't think it takes four cores to utilize all of those applications. Sure, you listed four (very conveniently) but that doesn't mean that each affinity automatically takes one task, unless of course you manually set it. It would pretty much take one core, two maybe to run all of those processes at the same time.

[Pdawg]

Originally Posted by mnelson07

Let's say without overclocking.

No let's not say without overclocking. If most people on this forum didn't overclock then they'd have to rename it noob-forums.net or delluser-forum.net or something equally as silly.

Besides, yeah, alot of people on this forum game heavily. If I can beat alot of similair systems in the gaming sense of things with the only difference being their duals and my quad then it can't be hard cuz I'm certainly no pro. I'm not saying that to be a braggard or anything either, just ponting out an example.

[kobe24]

how can u say that! maroon1 where r u!!! listen to this guy, ummm quad cores will better duals neday. quads are still way more effective by using four cores to run 4 single apps. higher 3dmark score and better for gaming. and yes the cache size is 8mb l2. y do u say buy it when apps take full advange of quads when most things r startin to already.

[lancec2c30]

For the price, right now you can get better performance out of a dual-core cpu. But the 3dmark scores don't lie, 4 cores is better then 2.

[kobe24]

Originally Posted by lancec2c30

For the price, right now you can get better performance out of a dual-core cpu. But the 3dmark scores don't lie, 4 cores is better then 2.

incorrect, u might be able to get a e6750 for $100 AUS less but the quad is worth goin the extra for sure way more performance.

[maroon1]

The difference between the Quad core and Dual core is not much (clock speed wise), for example, E6750 is only 266MHz faster than Q6600. However in a few months when the games that utilize quad core like Crysis, HL2 episode 2 come out, quad-cores will improve gameplay alot.