Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 42

Thread: Dual vs Quad

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Beans
    98

    Re: Dual vs Quad

    Last edited by Gosport; September 22nd, 2009 at 10:47 PM.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Beans
    98

    Re: Dual vs Quad

    Quote Originally Posted by YeOK View Post
    I would advise you to go for a quad core Phenom II. Quad cores are better at multitasking, regardless of how well an application is written to support it. Linux has very good SMP support. Having X-org, compiz-fusion, Firefox and the gimp each running on its own core at the same time is going to give a much more responsive desktop experience than the extra few Mhz of similar priced Dual core.

    I would avoid getting anything older than a Phenom II though.



    I'm also happy with my SSD, however, I didn't bother with the duck tape.


    That model is $169.99, a bit pricier than I want:

    AMD Phenom II X4 945 Deneb 3.0GHz Socket AM3 125W Quad-Core Processor Model

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Edubuntu 8.04 Hardy Heron

    Re: Dual vs Quad

    Quote Originally Posted by Gosport View Post
    Sorry, I meant the Phenom I Quad core you linked in your first post. The Athlon II Quad Core is a good choice.
    Last edited by YeOK; September 22nd, 2009 at 11:20 PM.
    You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me.

  4. #24

    Re: Dual vs Quad

    Quote Originally Posted by Simian Man View Post
    I agree, go with the dual-core. "Multi-Core" is a marketing term until application developers and/or compiler writers actually make use of them.
    Compilers cannot automatically create threaded code unless the language is pure, i.e. has no side effects. I don't see every single programmer switching to a pure language like Haskell any time soon.
    im dyslexic, please don't comment on my spelling
    blender 3d artist, visit my portfolio
    Quad-Ren, Open source, resolution independent 2D graphics engine
    Screen space is a precious resource, don't waste it

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Beans
    1,534

    Re: Dual vs Quad

    Quote Originally Posted by hessiess View Post
    Compilers cannot automatically create threaded code unless the language is pure, i.e. has no side effects. I don't see every single programmer switching to a pure language like Haskell any time soon.
    There is actually quite a lot of research going into automatic parallelization of non-pure code, but such techniques aren't going to be commonplace for a while. There are also other programming systems that are unpure, like Erlang, but offer more support for simple concurrency than traditional languages. I think that the concurrent programming paradigm will become commonplace over the next few decades but not with languages like Haskell because, as you alluded to, not many programmers want to use a language like that .

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Re: Dual vs Quad

    I'd go with the quad as well. More is multi-threaded today than people realize. Sure, not everything is, but parallelism is also becoming easier and easier to implement. Better to have the hardware available enable performance through the life of your PC than not, even if its not fully realized on day 0.

    Seriously though, a SSD will yield a much more noticeable performance boost for the money.
    "Its easy to come up with new ideas, the hard part is letting go of what worked for you two years ago, but will soon be out of date." -Roger von Oech

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Beans
    143

    Re: Dual vs Quad

    You haven't put the most important part of your build on the list: The power supply. I strongly suggest to go for a very good power supply since that is "very much common mistake!" to be quite honest.

    I suggest you would at least look into an Antec 500Watts.

    EDIT: The case includes a PSU but 235 watts its a little low and might prove massively insufficient for any future video card update. Also I don't know how reputable is that particular brand for PSU but is not a brand I ever hear as recommended.
    Last edited by Dimitriid; September 23rd, 2009 at 04:32 AM.
    Socialismo, Patria o Muerte

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    4newOtherOSTalk4umCsig
    Beans
    555

    Re: Dual vs Quad

    Quote Originally Posted by Dimitriid View Post
    You haven't put the most important part of your build on the list: The power supply. I strongly suggest to go for a very good power supply since that is "very much common mistake!" to be quite honest.

    I suggest you would at least look into an Antec 500Watts.

    EDIT: The case includes a PSU but 235 watts its a little low and might prove massively insufficient for any future video card update. Also I don't know how reputable is that particular brand for PSU but is not a brand I ever hear as recommended.
    Yep, I wouldn't even bother with a major-brand PSU less than 500W. It is EASY on a current gen dual/tri/quad core CPU system to pull 300W at load.
    PhenomII 720x4@3.65gHz w/Zalman cooler,PNY Nvidia GTX260, 4GB, Arch64

    14 is NOT a random number!!!!!
    Arch Linux | new Other OS Talk forum

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Beans
    143

    Re: Dual vs Quad

    I am running a Corsair 650watt PSU but if I decide to upgrade to anything more than my current geforce 260 I will probably need to get a 700 or 800 watt model.

    Getting back to topic that processor alone is ranked at 95w ( I think that would be peak but still ). Processor alone could be pulling as much as 40% of the max capability of that PSU and that if the psu is to be trusted: most less-than-stellar brands have so many spikes you really can't trust the numbers they advertise anyways.
    Last edited by Dimitriid; September 23rd, 2009 at 04:50 AM.
    Socialismo, Patria o Muerte

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    4newOtherOSTalk4umCsig
    Beans
    555

    Re: Dual vs Quad

    Quote Originally Posted by Dimitriid View Post
    I am running a Corsair 650watt PSU but if I decide to upgrade to anything more than my current geforce 260 I will probably need to get a 700 or 800 watt model.

    Getting back to topic that processor alone is ranked at 95w ( I think that would be peak but still ). Processor alone could be pulling as much as 40% of the max capability of that PSU and that if the psu is to be trusted: most less-than-stellar brands have so many spikes you really can't trust the numbers they advertise anyways.
    The "95W" attached to a CPU name is only a thermal specification (TDP)-it does not define electrical load. It can imply it, but only imply it.

    Wattage numbers don't tell you much on PSUs anyway-you have to look at the number and kind of rails, as well as their max amperage to know if you are in fact "upgrading".
    Last edited by Skripka; September 23rd, 2009 at 04:54 AM.
    PhenomII 720x4@3.65gHz w/Zalman cooler,PNY Nvidia GTX260, 4GB, Arch64

    14 is NOT a random number!!!!!
    Arch Linux | new Other OS Talk forum

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •