Hi everyone.. i want a computer but dont know a lot about them and dont want to get ripped off.. i want to know the 6 core or quad which is the better and how can i tell if a 6 core is in a system as some just sau intel i7...would there be any noticable difference between the two..John
-
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 or 6 core
- Thread starter busajohn
- Start date
Depends on what you do on the PC? You need to check the model number with Intel as there's no easy way to tell if it's quad/six core, however with AMD they have "X2/3/4/6" or FX-4/6/8"to let you know how many cores they have.
Associate
- Joined
- 5 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 403
You really don't need 6 cores for anything.
You only NEED one execution core full stop. More is nice, and better, up to the point where your software can make use of extra cores. Some stuff I run at work scales almost linearly with cores. I'd have a stack of 64 core blades if money weren't a factor
http://www.dell.com/uk/enterprise/p/poweredge-m915/pd
*drools*
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 11,260
my 6 core AMD beats some i7's in video encoding and video work, premier seems to make use of all cores. Infact I only edit photos and process videos on my PC.... which is making me think of going bulldozer :O, I think this is only where bulldozer shines right?
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 426
It really depends on what your going to use your PC for. If your going down a purely gaming route (and general tasks) then a quad core is all you'll ever really need for a long time. There are very few games that truly have optimisation for 4 cores so 6 would be a waste.
If however your PC is for video editing, lots of multitasking, work loads, office work in a design environment then 6 cores MAY be better. It really is difficult to gage as its about your needs.
If its gaming though Id recommend going for the 2500K and overclock it like I did. It'll nail games and be future proof enough for a few years and will not break the bank too
If you do though get a better cooler thna the stock so you can safely overclock
Also from what I gather it could depend on what GPU you go for. I've read from this forums and other places that AMD CPU's marry very well with ATI Radeon cards and so if you went for a Radeon card you may be better getting the Bulldozer CPU range but if you go Nvidia you could be better suited for Intel.
If you could tell us more about your needs, wants and alligencies then we could help more
If however your PC is for video editing, lots of multitasking, work loads, office work in a design environment then 6 cores MAY be better. It really is difficult to gage as its about your needs.
If its gaming though Id recommend going for the 2500K and overclock it like I did. It'll nail games and be future proof enough for a few years and will not break the bank too
If you do though get a better cooler thna the stock so you can safely overclock Also from what I gather it could depend on what GPU you go for. I've read from this forums and other places that AMD CPU's marry very well with ATI Radeon cards and so if you went for a Radeon card you may be better getting the Bulldozer CPU range but if you go Nvidia you could be better suited for Intel.
If you could tell us more about your needs, wants and alligencies then we could help more
Last edited: