Quad > Dual
Be reet, this spec will do me thinks, althoguh my psu has gone up in price!! Might by the mobo and ram sometime nxt week.
The new and improved "My rig £700 max"
- Thread starter James07
- Start date
Quad > Dual
Be reet, this spec will do me thinks, althoguh my psu has gone up in price!! Might by the mobo and ram sometime nxt week.
Associate
- Joined
- 21 May 2009
- Posts
- 30
Dual > Quad for gaming 
I grabbed a quad because I occasionally contribute to folding@home and re-encode a lot of the HD rips I get.
I grabbed a quad because I occasionally contribute to folding@home and re-encode a lot of the HD rips I get.
Dual > Quad for gaming
I grabbed a quad because I occasionally contribute to folding@home and re-encode a lot of the HD rips I get.
Dont be silly, how can dual be better?
Associate
- Joined
- 26 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 1,471
- Location
- Swindon, Wilts
dual actually is better for gaming atm duals often hit in excess of 4ghz no problem with v good cooling eg. TRUE with push pull or good W/C...whereas a quad or i7 will stop at about 4 so no joke really... it wont be until blizzard release an update for WoW utilizing more than 2 cores although thatl only mean 3 at most are being used so AMD 720 owners will be happy. i dont know any other company that are writing games for more than two cores yet.
Associate
- Joined
- 21 May 2009
- Posts
- 30
The dual vs quad thing with gaming is pretty much always wrong. At lower resolutions, ie. 1280x1024 and under, a dual will be quicker. However, the frame rate will be so high anyway, that is simply wouldn't be noticeable, especially as the refresh rate of your display won't be as high as the frame rate in most of these situations.
However, past that, it becomes more dependent on graphics cards. Overall, it won't make a noticeable difference. As for everything else, modern processors are so fast anyway, so a quad, even with its lower peak clocks, would be plenty for everything.
However, I would seriously consider a Phenom II 720, purely because it's the cheaper option. You aren't going to lose much performance, certainly not anything you'd notice. If you are looking at Core i7 anyway, you may as well. If you really want to go Intel (which would be worse value any way you look at it) then consider a much older Q6700, even though it runs hotter, it's much cheaper and you'd be looking at similar clocks (slightly under), again nothing you'd notice.
Finally, a 4870 might be better value, being about £35 cheaper.
Everything elsefrom lynchy's build looks pretty good
However, past that, it becomes more dependent on graphics cards. Overall, it won't make a noticeable difference. As for everything else, modern processors are so fast anyway, so a quad, even with its lower peak clocks, would be plenty for everything.
However, I would seriously consider a Phenom II 720, purely because it's the cheaper option. You aren't going to lose much performance, certainly not anything you'd notice. If you are looking at Core i7 anyway, you may as well. If you really want to go Intel (which would be worse value any way you look at it) then consider a much older Q6700, even though it runs hotter, it's much cheaper and you'd be looking at similar clocks (slightly under), again nothing you'd notice.
Finally, a 4870 might be better value, being about £35 cheaper.
Everything elsefrom lynchy's build looks pretty good
Associate
- Joined
- 21 May 2009
- Posts
- 30
^ One needs a quad core at 4.4ghz to get past the bandwidth bottlenecking when running SLI.
Associate
- Joined
- 26 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 1,471
- Location
- Swindon, Wilts
'Tis true. Lucky that he's going single card
I just re-read my last post and kinda forgot to finish my sentence:
"Finally, a 4870 might be better value, being about £35 cheaper..."
IF you aren't going to overclock the card. 4890s are overclocking beasts.
I just re-read my last post and kinda forgot to finish my sentence:
"Finally, a 4870 might be better value, being about £35 cheaper..."
IF you aren't going to overclock the card. 4890s are overclocking beasts.
Associate
- Joined
- 26 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 1,471
- Location
- Swindon, Wilts
'Tis true. Lucky that he's going single card
I just re-read my last post and kinda forgot to finish my sentence:
"Finally, a 4870 might be better value, being about £35 cheaper..."
IF you aren't going to overclock the card. 4890s are overclocking beasts.
the new black edition 1ghz does look v tasty.. would almost chop my 285 gtx in for 1 although that card is insanely quick.