-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Dual Core Or Quad Core?
- Thread starter S.A.S
- Start date
Depends if you are overclocking.
A 4.5ghz e8600 is better than a 4ghz q9650.
If you are not overclocking, the faster quad core is the better idea, and you should change your mind about not overclocking
An aside is that overclocking dual cores is a lot easier than overclocking quad cores, which is why I'm usually a proponent of dual cores
[blatantly stole the phrase from reflux, but I can't word it any better myself]
A 4.5ghz e8600 is better than a 4ghz q9650.
If you are not overclocking, the faster quad core is the better idea, and you should change your mind about not overclocking
An aside is that overclocking dual cores is a lot easier than overclocking quad cores, which is why I'm usually a proponent of dual cores
[blatantly stole the phrase from reflux, but I can't word it any better myself]
Last edited:
This question has been asked 757575 billion times.
Essentially, a higher clocked dual core is supposedly better in games but that depends on how CPU-intensive the game is. Since most games are GPU-intensive, and most people use their PC for tasks other than just gaming, I'm usually a proponent of quad cores.
Essentially, a higher clocked dual core is supposedly better in games but that depends on how CPU-intensive the game is. Since most games are GPU-intensive, and most people use their PC for tasks other than just gaming, I'm usually a proponent of quad cores.
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Feb 2009
- Posts
- 1,253
- Location
- PorthEmmet, Cornwall
I agree completely - the Quad is more useful in more things than a Dual and should remain so for longer imo.
Sure you can get a few more fps in some games with a dual core so if you're building a gaming box right now i would get a higher clocked dual.
However for the best balance between gaming and desktop use you can't go wrong with a quad and i would never go back to a dual for my main rig as a highly clocked quad + a ssd or two packs a tremendous punch for desktop duties.
However for the best balance between gaming and desktop use you can't go wrong with a quad and i would never go back to a dual for my main rig as a highly clocked quad + a ssd or two packs a tremendous punch for desktop duties.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 15 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 6,968
Or even a Tri-Core 
just to add to the mix
just to add to the mix
generally, games and windows dont take full advantage of the possibilities provided by a quad core, so that extra power goes wasted. The reason a dual core may be better in those applications than a quad core is because it is theoretically easier to push it to higher clock speeds while maintaining temperatures and stability. The whole way the cache works too can rarely cause problems with quad cores (q6600 has 8MB but some newer, better ones have 6MB, for unusual reasons)
Associate
- Joined
- 28 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 1,054
- Location
- nottinghamshire
it wont be long till games are running quad i think theres games taking advantage already
I hope so.
Usually when they are console ports they just thread a couple of routines, loosely, onto the fourth core. Most xbox ports (maby not even ports, but multi platforms) dont even bother to use the third core. Directx has a part to play in the multicore usage, you can even force older games to attempt to exploit it, I havn't noticed any differences myself though.
Also depends if you care about power consumption....the 45nm quads are much better...but the other day I was running IntelBurnTest on my Q6600 @ 3.6GHz with only 1.352V, and it was pulling around 162W (max I saw)...
Now, my Xeon E3120 at only 4.05GHz with 1.352V pulls about 68W maximum during the same test.
Also the Xeon idles around 8-12w while the Q6600 idled about 55-60.
I just care a bit about efficiency as it's ridiculous to have this thing just sitting there burning away power while the only thing that's running is utorrent.
Now, my Xeon E3120 at only 4.05GHz with 1.352V pulls about 68W maximum during the same test.
Also the Xeon idles around 8-12w while the Q6600 idled about 55-60.
I just care a bit about efficiency as it's ridiculous to have this thing just sitting there burning away power while the only thing that's running is utorrent.
What methods are there to find specific component power consumption? I havn't looked into it but I guess I am curious now.
oh, and because mine fails it wont have that feature >_<
wow @ IM forum
Well, when I build my next machine in 3-4 years it's going to be an absolute beast