Dual Core vs Quad Core

Pneumonic · 23 Oct 2008 at 22:02

imran-17 said:
geess im sorry for posting this

I should worry mate

its a valid question although I would suggest someone sticks a big sticky somewhere saying "use the search"

Either way you will get different answers to this question depending on who you ask... and everyone likes to put their oar in on this sort of "discussion"

HighlandeR · 23 Oct 2008 at 22:23

PaulyD said:
Will find out shortly when i bench and compare my Q6600 to E8600

Please do we need someone to end this dual vs quad debate finaly

I do love quad action its just so wicked to unrar and multi-task windows and play a hd 1080p at sametime, shame about the hdd performance holding it all though, and obviously it would be sorta nice to finaly have a pc game thats top end and actually getting a good 30-40fps boost from dual to quad !

Big.Wayne · 23 Oct 2008 at 22:26

Fire Wizard said:
Take a look at the graphs below. It really does show that the difference is minimal.

Hey Fire-Wizard, you forgot to post the power-consumption charts along with the quad-vs dual benchies!

I understand your a youngling and things like running costs may not be important to you but as your doing such a good job with your posts It would be coolio if you consider us eco-oldies when you post up comparisons and include power consumption too, thanks in advance!

PaulyD · 23 Oct 2008 at 22:52

Please do we need someone to end this dual vs quad debate finaly

Just doing my Q6600 3.6Ghz benchies now - final ones kinda thing lol

Done 3d mark 06, vantage, crysis, warhead (first time using warhead benchy - should i be getting 20 odd fps at 1280x1024 res!?!)

Any others? going to do UT3 (said to favour quad) and Far Cry 2, some mem and pii stuff as well (as looking to clock the fsb to 500 hopefully)

Peter450 · 23 Oct 2008 at 23:20

This is a great article that explaines it nice and simply, with tests backing it up

http://www.guru3d.com/article/cpu-scaling-in-games-with-quad-core-processors/

I choose a duel core, when i built my rig a few months back, however as others have said newer games are starting to make more use of the extra cores

PaulyD · 23 Oct 2008 at 23:25

Good link

I'm looking to see whats best for me, one chip is going either way

Linx · 23 Oct 2008 at 23:58

I would prefer Quad core it's more 'future proof' and games such as Crysis make use of the 4 cores, so realisticly based on gaming and applications quad core is the way foward; long term.

But again it's about personal preference, dual cores are cheaper at a higher stocks..

Kelt · 23 Oct 2008 at 23:59

Having seen how most of the latest games are finally starting to utilise more than two cores, there's no way I'd go back to a dual.

PaulyD · 24 Oct 2008 at 00:25

Well I will be benching current games that use quad core (Q6600 @ 3.6Ghz as per sig) and compare to my E8600 once i have gotten it tomorrow and clocked it some, be interesting for all to see.

Will be keeping the winner anyway and missus gets a good second

harris1986 · 24 Oct 2008 at 09:23

I assume you will be running your 8600 at 3.6ghz aswell for sake of clock for clock benchmarks?

linktoinsanity · 24 Oct 2008 at 09:42

PaulyD said:
Well I will be benching current games that use quad core (Q6600 @ 3.6Ghz as per sig) and compare to my E8600 once i have gotten it tomorrow and clocked it some, be interesting for all to see.

Will be keeping the winner anyway and missus gets a good second

After you've done that I think you should put them both at stock speeds, to show the difference there. One of the main issues between Quads and Duals atm is that Duals are often higher clocked and I hear are generally better at overclocking.

Personally, Quads are the future, no doubts there. They'll be overtaken by Dual-Quads though, then Quad-Quads and so on (if Intel/AMD choose to go that way). At the moment however, Dual Core's offer more bang for your buck with most current games and apllications in the here and now. If money is no object and you would like to have a more future proof machine, then Quad Core is probably the way to go. If you want a faster machine and have a limited budget, I'd suggest you spend the money on a faster hard drive solution (such as RAID) and a more powerful graphics card. As many people have said though, it depends on the user. I currently have a Dual Core E8400 so as an upgrade to that (a little while before I do that) I'll go Quad, but until then Dual suits me just fine.

gareth170 · 24 Oct 2008 at 10:18

how i see it is quads have lower clocks because they have 4 cores so if a app uses all 4 cores it'll be faster than a higher clock dual core.

if amd / intel makes quads the same clock speed as a dual core then there'll be no point making/releaseing new dual cores.

DazzXP · 24 Oct 2008 at 10:18

Back in march i got my QX9650 for £350 which was only £50 more expensive then the Q9550 i thought was a good deal, although the 9650 was second hand it has been trully amazing, unlocked multiplier has been a treat as i can leave my FSB @ 1333MHz and still hit 4GHz. I could get my FSB to 1600MHz but made the north bridge quite warm. But oh man what an upgrade from my E4300 @ 3GHz Supreme commander loved the new CPU no slow down what so ever! SIM speed does not drop with the quad unlike the dual core which would quite easily hit CPU usage of 100% on both cores. Best program to use is core optimiasing to make sure the first core is not overchocked. Still not many games use quad core but they do overclock as good as a dual core so you don't loose performance. You can overclock a Quad core to get more out of it but you can't add extra cores to a CPU.

PaulyD · 24 Oct 2008 at 13:50

I assume you will be running your 8600 at 3.6ghz aswell for sake of clock for clock benchmarks?

After you've done that I think you should put them both at stock speeds, to show the difference there. One of the main issues between Quads and Duals atm is that Duals are often higher clocked and I hear are generally better at overclocking.

Can certainly do that if i get enough time

linktoinsanity · 24 Oct 2008 at 15:51

gareth170 said:
if amd / intel makes quads the same clock speed as a dual core then there'll be no point making/releaseing new dual cores.

**Price**

Bradley8988 · 24 Oct 2008 at 16:35

Tbh were comparing a Q6600 Clocked vs a clocked E8600. Really if the games are making use of the extra 2 cores then the old Q6600 should pull ahead easy at these clocks. Tbh i dont think it will and the Quads that are really pushing the old duals out gaming wise are the ones running past 4Ghz. I may be wrong, Cant wait to see the results.

PaulyD · 24 Oct 2008 at 17:51

Me neither Bradley - can confirm i got my E8600 waiting at home, Q822A438 is the batch so same as yours i think

Agree that if the extra cores make all that difference, then multi-threaded games now should pull way ahead on the Q6600 over the E8600.

Will run a DX9 test of Far Cry 2 as DX10 was giving me stuttering issues on my 4870 no matter resolution, AA, driver etc. Doesnt affect the test as the same test will be run on both CPU's, just annoying....

Off Topic - Whats the DFI Lan Party JR P45-T2RS like as a mobo? picked one up on B grade earlier

Bradley8988 · 24 Oct 2008 at 17:57

i think you got the models confused. Dfi bios's are quite complex.

PaulyD · 24 Oct 2008 at 18:45

I have got them mixed-i got the P35 flavour-saw your sig and did lazy copy+paste

Hmmm should be interesting how it compares to my maximus/rampage but that won't be fired up until i got a few more bits delivered..

tatts · 24 Oct 2008 at 19:04

End of the day, a core 2 duo or quad running 3.2ghz bottlenecks a 4870x2 so why worry about running 4ghz+ unless you're benching or willy waving :confused: