PDA

View Full Version : Question on dual vs quad core



monkeyKata
December 16th, 2009, 06:57 PM
I've been looking excitedly at this laptop for several days now:

http://system76.com/product_info.php?cPath=28&products_id=88

There are several options to upgrade the Core2 Duo 2.53GHz processor that comes with it. It's about the same price to upgrade to a Core2 Duo 2.80 GHz (+ $165) as it is upgrading to a Core2 Quad 2.00GHz (+ $169).

So how do you know which would be better/faster? The faster dual core or the slower quad core?

Skripka
December 16th, 2009, 07:13 PM
I've been looking excitedly at this laptop for several days now:

http://system76.com/product_info.php?cPath=28&products_id=88

There are several options to upgrade the Core2 Duo 2.53GHz processor that comes with it. It's about the same price to upgrade to a Core2 Duo 2.80 GHz (+ $165) as it is upgrading to a Core2 Quad 2.00GHz (+ $169).

So how do you know which would be better/faster? The faster dual core or the slower quad core?

Which is more important, battery life or speed?

Also what are you planning on doing? Is your CPU bottlenecking, now?

gjoellee
December 16th, 2009, 07:15 PM
I've been looking excitedly at this laptop for several days now:

http://system76.com/product_info.php?cPath=28&products_id=88

There are several options to upgrade the Core2 Duo 2.53GHz processor that comes with it. It's about the same price to upgrade to a Core2 Duo 2.80 GHz (+ $165) as it is upgrading to a Core2 Quad 2.00GHz (+ $169).

So how do you know which would be better/faster? The faster dual core or the slower quad core?

2 GHz quad core is way better then a 2,80 dual core. I have an Intel Core 2 duo quad core at 1,6GHz (2,8GHz with turbo boost) and it is way faster then my friends 3GHz dual core.

Nevertheless the Core 2 quad core does not have turbo boost, which means that it wont overclock if more power is needed. If you multitask a lot, you should go with the quad core. If you spend most of your time playing "heavy" games like Call of Duty 6 or Assassins Creed you should rather go for the dual-core as you will notice faster loading at 2,80GHz then on 2,00GHz.

If you play "heavy" games and multitask, go for the quad core.

You will anyways get the fastest overall performance with the quad core.

NOTE: You should get the 8 cell battery, whatever CPU you select.

Skripka
December 16th, 2009, 07:19 PM
2 GHz quad core is way better then a 2,80 dual core. I have an Intel Core 2 duo quad core at 1,6GHz (2,8GHz with turbo boost) and it is way faster then my friends 3GHz dual core.

Nevertheless the Core 2 quad core does not have turbo boost, which means that it wont overclock if more power is needed. If you multitask a lot, you should go with the quad core. If you spend most of your time playing "heavy" games like Call of Duty 6 or Assassins Creed you should rather go for the dual-core as you will notice faster loading at 2,80GHz then on 2,00GHz.

If you play "heavy" games and multitask, go for the quad core.

You will anyways get the fastest overall performance with the quad core.

If the performance increase of a quad over a dual core is really needed, the OP should consider a tower instead of a laptop. Also, it depends on what you're doing. MOST programs are not written to take advatange of multi-core CPUs-and run faster with a high gHz dual core than a low gHz quad.

For the cost of that quad-laptop, you can get a much faster and happier running tower.


*If* performance is necessary.

Sinkingships7
December 16th, 2009, 07:21 PM
I've been looking excitedly at this laptop for several days now:

http://system76.com/product_info.php?cPath=28&products_id=88

There are several options to upgrade the Core2 Duo 2.53GHz processor that comes with it. It's about the same price to upgrade to a Core2 Duo 2.80 GHz (+ $165) as it is upgrading to a Core2 Quad 2.00GHz (+ $169).

So how do you know which would be better/faster? The faster dual core or the slower quad core?

The faster dual core will give you better performance overall. However, neither of those upgrades are worth the price. The 2.5GHz C2D will be absolutely fine for the vast majority of things you might do on this laptop.

The only way you gain performance from quad cores is if the program you're using uses multiple threads efficiently. And at 2.0GHz, the performance gain of the quad vs the 2.5GHz C2D is negligible, even when dealing with multi threaded apps. In the long run, you'd notice a serious slowdown because most apps will only use either one or two cores, which will be running at the 2.0GHz clock instead of 2.5.

The fact that you're getting a System76 computer tells me you're into Linux anyway, and you probably won't be running Adobe software, which are some of the better reasons to get quad cores these days.

My final opinion: Get the 2.5GHz C2D; no upgrade required.

monkeyKata
December 16th, 2009, 07:22 PM
2 GHz quad core is way better then a 2,80 dual core. I have an Intel Core 2 duo quad core at 1,6GHz (2,8GHz with turbo boost) and it is way faster then my friends 3GHz dual core.

Nevertheless the Core 2 quad core does not have turbo boost, which means that it wont overclock if more power is needed. If you multitask a lot, you should go with the quad core. If you spend most of your time playing "heavy" games like Call of Duty 6 or Assassins Creed you should rather go for the dual-core as you will notice faster loading at 2,80GHz then on 2,00GHz.

If you play "heavy" games and multitask, go for the quad core.

You will anyways get the fastest overall performance with the quad core.

NOTE: You should get the 8 cell battery, whatever CPU you select.

Hey, thanks a lot for the detailed response.

I'm not bottlenecking now, and to be honest I don't push my system very much. I'm looking at a nice upgrade that will last me a long while and that will play the occasional game well.

Warpnow
December 16th, 2009, 07:27 PM
I would, without a doubt, stay with the default option. The increase is going to very negligible for alot of money.

monkeyKata
December 16th, 2009, 07:29 PM
The faster dual core will give you better performance overall. However, neither of those upgrades are worth the price. The 2.5GHz C2D will be absolutely fine for the vast majority of things you might do on this laptop.

The only way you gain performance from quad cores is if the program you're using uses multiple threads efficiently. And at 2.0GHz, the performance gain of the quad vs the 2.5GHz C2D is negligible, even when dealing with multi threaded apps. In the long run, you'd notice a serious slowdown because most apps will only use either one or two cores, which will be running at the 2.0GHz clock instead of 2.5.

The fact that you're getting a System76 computer tells me you're into Linux anyway, and you probably won't be running Adobe software, which are some of the better reasons to get quad cores these days.

My final opinion: Get the 2.5GHz C2D; no upgrade required.

Hmm... yeah this makes sense. I appreciate the info, as I didn't know exactly how quad cores worked in relation to dual cores. You're probably right in that the default 2.5GHz would be all the fast I'd really need.

And so... the program itself has to be able to make use of the multiple threads/cores? Does this have to do with 32bit vs 64bit systems? I was under the impression that 64bit linux was what was needed to use more than two cores, and more than a certain amount of memory, but maybe I'm wrong here...?

In any case thanks a lot for the info and opinion.

nrs
December 16th, 2009, 07:47 PM
Faster dual core CPUs will win hands down on single threaded applications. Quad core CPUs will win hands down on nicely threaded applications, and they will be able to handle a heavier workload. The last part was the main selling point for me. I don't use many applications that get a nice boost on the quad core, but I do tend to run a lot of applications at once, and I can run more simultaneously than I can on my roughly equivalent dual core system.

If you had to choose between the quad core and the 8-cell battery, I'd go for the battery.

gjoellee
December 16th, 2009, 07:51 PM
If you had to choose between the quad core and the 8-cell battery, I'd go for the battery.

Amen!

Sinkingships7
December 16th, 2009, 07:59 PM
And so... the program itself has to be able to make use of the multiple threads/cores?

Yes. The program is written to take care of its tasks on multiple threads, and it's the operating system's job to distribute the threads evenly across all the processor cores.


Does this have to do with 32bit vs 64bit systems? I was under the impression that 64bit linux was what was needed to use more than two cores, and more than a certain amount of memory, but maybe I'm wrong here...?

Not a thing. 32bit systems will handle cores just as well as 64bit systems. Memory, however, is an issue. A 64bit applications will take more memory, but only because memory size takes on a new meaning. A single integer number on a 32bit system will take about 4 bytes of memory, where it will take about 8 bytes on a 64bit system. I can explain more if you wish.


If you had to choose between the quad core and the 8-cell battery, I'd go for the battery.

Absolutely.

monkeyKata
December 16th, 2009, 08:08 PM
Thanks to all of your input, everyone.

All this talk about the battery, are you all referring to the extra battery option? So... the laptop will actually come loaded with two batteries, or is this just an extra battery to have if, in a few years, the first battery dies? I agree a better battery would be a good bet, though I can't tell from the configuration if the battery included already is 8 or 9 cell or what.

EDIT: So the extra battery option is intended to prolong battery life by literally swapping in the second when the first is about out of charge.

Gizenshya
December 16th, 2009, 08:20 PM
I agree with sinkingships and gjoellee. This post reiterates much of what they said.

I faced a similar choice with my current desktop. I chose the core2 duo because it is faster with almost all games (ie, the ones that don't support 4 cores), because the vast majority only support one or 2 cores.

Quad cores are great for multitasking... but... that is pretty much it. Quad core processors just aren't supported in many mainstream programs yet (other than Adobe, and a few other exceptions). Even then, a core2 duo at 2.5x ghz would probably be able to handle most things you throw at it without flinching-- so there wouldn't be any noticable difference 95% of the time (just guessing). So other than that small percentage of time, the core2 duo actually performs at least as well, if not better. The core2 would be better for gaming as well.

IMO, the core2 duo is the better overall choice, and I would stay with the base model.

Marvin666
December 16th, 2009, 10:40 PM
I tend to run multiple applications at once, so I would get more of a boost from the quad core. If you don't tend to multitask, then you would get a higher boost with a faster dual core.