• 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 or Dual core?

Guest2

Guest2

Guest2

Soldato
Joined
6 May 2009
Posts
20,422
I currently have

[email protected] on a Scythe headsink and 120mm fan
2 x 1GB OCZ 6400 Plat series DDR2 800
XFX 650i Ultra Motherboard

I cannot get the E2140 to 3ghz no matter what I do. Im not sure if im missing a setting somewhere in the bios but have tried uppling cpu volts, slackening timings on memory and just trying one stick.

Temps are 29idle and 54max load, Orthos cpu stress

If I was to upgrade, should I go for something like a Q6600 or faster dual core that coule possibly hit 4ghz?
 
Hi,

I'd guess it depends what you use you PC for. I have a Q6600 at 3.5Ghz which does me very well. But to be honest when I'm gaming etc it never uses all four cores, so a faster clock speed dual core would actually be quicker in those circumstances.

If you do a lot of video encoding etc, then with the right software it can use all four cores of a quad and therefore would be considerably quicker than a faster clock speed dual core.

Your choice really.

E-I
 
Last edited:
im on the E2160 on 3ghz but still looking for a q6600 as i think the extra cores will benefit later when games use them.

maybe your mobo has the FSB hole or limit for overclocking?
 
Evil-I said:
Hi,

I'd guess it depends what you use you PC for. I have a Q6600 at 3.5Ghz which does me very well. But to be honest when I'm gaming etc it never uses all four cores, so a faster clock speed dual core would actually be quicker in those circumstances.

If you do a lot of video encoding etc, then with the right software it can use all four cores of a quad and therefore would be considerably quicker than a faster clock speed dual core.

Your choice really.

E-I
Click to expand...


new games are using quads battlefield shows you this ! the amount of people struggling on even extreme high clocked duals shows you unless you cant afford it theres no point in going dualcore now.

quads start from nearly 70 quid new and you could get a second hand q6600 for that aswell no point in getting any dualcore unless you unlocking to a quad and are lucky.
 
Just bought a Q6600 from here for £85 delivered with a cooler. Thanks all, hopefully its should last me out another 4 years!
 
I had a dual core (E8400) for about a year, until I "upgraded" to a quad core (Q9550) last year July.

The end of the story: similar performance - but more heat
I'd bet that you hardly find any performance differences in your day to day work.

If you need the last squeez of performance (video encoding), then go quad.
If power consumption / heat and noise is an issue, then dual.
 
If you current setup is doing the job then stick with it. I would only upgrade to a quad if the games you play take advantage of them or if you use applications which can benefit from a quad core.
 
It is, but i only really use winamp from 1999 and internet. I'm not going to use a P100 with windows 95 and 16mb ram though

I occasionally like to play crysis and i want a decent pc for BF3, Starcraft 2 and AvP3 when they eventually come out
 
Last edited:
I would try to get a cheap Q6600 and overclock it and maybe upgrade the graphics card when the games are out as you can ascertain whether you actually need to get a new card or not.
 
Last edited:
Guest2 said:
It is, but i only really use winamp from 1999 and internet. I'm not going to use a P100 with windows 95 and 16mb ram though

I occasionally like to play crysis and i want a decent pc for BF3, Starcraft 2 and AvP3 when they eventually come out
Click to expand...

Quad core, it's the way things are heading.

Most Games / Programs might not need them now but who's to say what will be happening in 12 months.

I had that XFX 650i board and got a Q6600 to 3.2Ghz fairly easily.

Bear in mind not all boards / chips overclock as easily or at all!
 
Good choice with going for a quad. I had the same cpu as you then upgraded to a q6700 as I found the dual to be sub par in a couple of games. Quad core seems to be the future and should be the standard soon. The new battlefield will show you that:)
 
reflux said:
Bear in mind quads don't overclock very well at all on 650i boards.
Click to expand...

This is what I was about to say. My mate has a Q6600 on an Asus 650 sli mobo and it won't clock for ****.

Worth a try but if it doesn't clock well then either upgrade to a new socket or get a better dually. I have an E6600 on a certain auction site atm. :P
 
Pentium said:
I had a dual core (E8400) for about a year, until I "upgraded" to a quad core (Q9550) last year July.

The end of the story: similar performance - but more heat
I'd bet that you hardly find any performance differences in your day to day work.

If you need the last squeez of performance (video encoding), then go quad.
If power consumption / heat and noise is an issue, then dual.
Click to expand...

This. I did exactly the same, then a week later I thought - this is a waste of cash and promptly sold it on again!
My 3.8Ghz E8400 is more than enough for my machine - but I only really play games and surf the web.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom