In the case of the OP yes a dual core will be sufficient for his use but the discussion blossomed further then the original question. As has been said thos of us with quads used to have dual core and therefore we know how much different our systems are because of having a quad core so if we say it is more responsive (not load) then we have obviously found that to be the case. Unless the suggestion is that werre all intel\amd employee's attempting to convert the masses i really don't see what the problem is in understanding that we have found our systems more responsive. I really do think some people just come on forums looking to have an argument and it doesn't matter what it is as long as they can argue.
-
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.
Quad Core, any point ?
- Thread starter Pygor
- Start date
Fine if you're computer person, then go ahead and buy a quad. I agree entirely, my next upgrade will be one. Otherwise, rot. Tell me you can notice nanosecond latecy under normal use when tabbing between normal applications. Yes in theory a quad is better but in practise a single or even dual is fine.
But if I were to spec up PC's for normal to medium and occasional heavy use then I'd fit a dual. For a kids machine where only things like word are used I'd buy a single core.
You have not got a clue! Tabbing between & Launching are not the same thing at all.
This forum is not most people & the question was asked on this forum.
Intel or AMD which is the best ?
I have 4 rigs at home... the one in my sig currently sitting at 3.7ghz, an E2180 sitting at 3.2ghz a second Q6600 sitting at 3.2ghz and an E6800 sitting at 3.6ghz and I have to say even with the Q6600 at stock there is a noticable difference between the boot times and response times of the Quads over the duel.. Nothing I dont think that I would pay extra for.. but when you have multiple apps on the go... virus scans... anti spywear software, windows updates etc... the quads are more responsive..
No if that means emails, surfing and gaming or even a bit of encoding,it is when you start to do 2 or more things that are intensive that the dual might struggle and then if it is only once in a while then a dual core still ok, i think some people are losing sight of what was asked by the op.
Yes if you are a power user then fine,even most games there isn't a lot between them,there was a lot of threads about this last year when the quads(Q6600) came out and people were on about games like alan wake using all the cores we still waiting for the game.
And people tell me I ignore "spec me" budgets in home audio forum.
Dont worry i used to think the way you did for the same reasons as i never maxed out the cores on my dual 3.6 & thought there would be nothing to gain until the quad was equal to or greater than the dual in Ghz as the review sites only show single app/game single/multithreaded performance one at a time & say nothing of multi tasking or responsiveness.
I remember the early intel quad adopters on this forum getting allot of stick because they said the same thing as i & others am saying now but most of us had dual's & didn't think that there would be any difference until you used a true multi core app/game.
And also the OP did ask Hi,
Is there any real advantage on a Quad Core CPU v Core Duo ?
Talking everyday computing, as I don't know if there are programs that support Quad Cores.
Thanks
So we told him one advantage of a quad over a dual when not strictly using multi core software.
whether or not it is important to him is for him to decide.
And as far as i can tell the only people who were saying that there is no difference in responsiveness are users who don't have a quadcore.
But me personally think that a dual core would be best for his family.
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Jun 2008
- Posts
- 628
- Location
- Rugby
i've had a quad core for a year now and to be honest, im not amazingly impressed. I dont encode, i feel no need to virus scan my pc 24/7, all the other processes running in the background use 0-1% CPU so practically nothing. I feel having a much higher clocked dual is far more benefical in the last year would have served me better. I dont understand the whole doing millions of things at once, I dont feel vista distributes the load between cores at all, it just uses core 1.
Im idling now round 1-5% with FF & MSN + steam , 63 processes, 770 threads & all my 4cores are getting a share.
It sounds like you have a problem.
Last edited:
Bet a lot of that is todo with hdd speed,, of course the quad gonna be faster if the dual systems has lower spec hdds???
But My Dual & Quad have been in the same rig on 4xRAID-0 & i see the same effect as Pneumonic.
Hard disks are all Hitachi T7K500 (varing amounts off)
Setups arent exactly the same... all are running GeIL ULL 800mhz ram between 2 and 4gig, quads are on P5K-E motherboards and the duels on Gigabyte DS3L boards
I am not saying the difference in performance is huge.. but I know that when I swap between rigs if i have been on one of the duels then the quads do feel that bit snappier, especilly if say you are gamming then alt-tab and do something else..
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 16 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 1,724
- Location
- Worcestershire
Can't you select which core to run apps on in task manager by selecting ' set affinity' which shows your cores
