Dual core vs Quad core need some opinions

[SirWeazel]

To anyone reading this, thanks in advance for the input. I'm just looking for some general opinions/insight on what you think. Not really ubuntu/linux related.

I'm helping a friend with basically build/upgrade his computer cheaply. As of now, we're just upgrading motherboard/cpu. And for the price,i'm debating two options. A faster clock speed dual core, or a slower clock speed quad core. the two procs looking at are AMD's:

1. AMD Phenom II X2 550 Black Edition Dual Core Processor
- Processor Speed: 3.10GHz
- Cache Size: 2MB
- Processor Socket: AM3

or

2. AMD Athlon II X4 620 Quad Core Processor
- Processor Speed: 2.6GHz
- Cache Size: 2MB
- Processor Socket: AM3

Basically he'll be running XP, playing a flight sim game, watching movies. He doesn't really do alot of multitasking. Usually only has a couple windows open on the screen. And to be honest, i think he'll probably be running some older software, and if he does upgrade to windows vista/7 in the future he will probably stay with 32 bit since he has older 32 bit software. And hopefully he'll experiment with ubuntu after i get him setup.

I believe the phenom is a better proc, or would it be better for the 4 cores. price is about the same. Future wise i'm leaning to the 4 core, but i don't think he'll benefit so i'm thinking instant gratification from the faster dual core phenom.

Looking forward to what anyone has to say. Thanks

[blueshiftoverwatch]

Here's an in depth review of the two CPU's and how they perform under different circumstances, if it helps: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=97&p2=106&c=1

[NovaAesa]

For the tasks the computer will be used for, I don't think it will make any difference.

If it was me though, I would be going for the quad core (as I do alot of multithreaded rendering etc).

[mamamia88]

go with what is cheaper

[stmiller]

You can have the best of both worlds with the i5 and i7 quad cores.

The cpu speed speeds up if a process or program only needs 1-2 cores. They then operate as a high speed dual core...

And if something needs four cores, it operates back as a quad core.

[falconindy]

Go with the dual core, spend a little extra to get a quality HSF, and overclock 10%.

[Skripka]

To anyone reading this, thanks in advance for the input. I'm just looking for some general opinions/insight on what you think. Not really ubuntu/linux related.

I'm helping a friend with basically build/upgrade his computer cheaply. As of now, we're just upgrading motherboard/cpu. And for the price,i'm debating two options. A faster clock speed dual core, or a slower clock speed quad core. the two procs looking at are AMD's:

1. AMD Phenom II X2 550 Black Edition Dual Core Processor
- Processor Speed: 3.10GHz
- Cache Size: 2MB
- Processor Socket: AM3

or

2. AMD Athlon II X4 620 Quad Core Processor
- Processor Speed: 2.6GHz
- Cache Size: 2MB
- Processor Socket: AM3

Basically he'll be running XP, playing a flight sim game, watching movies. He doesn't really do alot of multitasking. Usually only has a couple windows open on the screen. And to be honest, i think he'll probably be running some older software, and if he does upgrade to windows vista/7 in the future he will probably stay with 32 bit since he has older 32 bit software. And hopefully he'll experiment with ubuntu after i get him setup.

I believe the phenom is a better proc, or would it be better for the 4 cores. price is about the same. Future wise i'm leaning to the 4 core, but i don't think he'll benefit so i'm thinking instant gratification from the faster dual core phenom.

Looking forward to what anyone has to say. Thanks

A few things:

1) Games, when played at "normal" resolutions these days on decent sized LCD panels such as 1680X1050 etc, really MUCH more on the GPU than the CPU. Much Much more. If money can either go to a better CPU or a better GPU-for gaming, it is better for more GPU.

2) You friend is picking a somewhat bad time to upgrade hardware.:
2a) USB3 is just coming out-and PCi slot expansion slots don't have enough bandwidth for a mere 2 full-speed ports.
2b) GPUs are migrating onto the CPU die. Such as Corei3 from Intel, and AMD has just announced moves to do similar in a fairly short time frame.

3) Either CPU should be fine. I'd take the quad but that is me, and my multitasking habit.


What mainboard, and GPU?

[Skripka]

You can have the best of both worlds with the i5 and i7 quad cores.


If you want to pay twice the price.

[SirWeazel]

Thank you for the quick replys. I love the ubuntu forums and it's community. I didn't think i'd have input so soon,i was about to go to bed and was pleased with all the input. I'll be checking back and reading what people say over the next few days, and probably tell my friend what to get on Monday. Thank you,

Also, my question doesn't have to pertain to those specific procs. It's also a general question as to a generic better faster proc with fewer cores vs generic proc with more cores.

Also, price is a concern, so we're not going with newest latest greatest stuff/top of the line. To be honest, probably going to order the parts from tigerdirect. And motherboard/cpu combo is running about $160.00 then going to have to purchase memory also.

The motherboards looking at have integrated video, which i know isn't the best (but probably better then his older videocard?? you think?) With a future purchase of a new video card later on. Unless i can talk him into swinging some more cash for a video card also.

Thanks again. I'm looking forward to any and all input.

P.S. Is there a big difference between the pc6400 800mhz vs pc8500 1066mhz? Worth it? I was thinking it would probably help with the integrated video? If not atleast some type of performance increase?

[Khakilang]

I would say Dual core.

[bleeding±the±dead]

the phenom.

[sxmaxchine]

out of those options the phenom X2 will be a lot faster then the athlon x4 however not in all sercumstances.

i would recomend the phenom x2

[sxmaxchine]

You can have the best of both worlds with the i5 and i7 quad cores.

The cpu speed speeds up if a process or program only needs 1-2 cores. They then operate as a high speed dual core...

And if something needs four cores, it operates back as a quad core.

for what he would be doing an i7 would be an overkill and a waste of money, however it would do those tasks for a few years yet. also the i5 and i7 don't work on am3 motherboards. also i wasn't trying to criticize what you were saying as i agree with what your saying

[bvanaerde]

2 years ago, I bought a new PC, and was wondering the same thing.
At that time, the Q6600 Quad Core (2,4 GHz) was cheaper than the Dual Cores with 3 GHz. I bought the Q6600, knowing that I could easily overclock it.

Right now I'm still using it... with a stable overclock to 3.2 GHz (with air cooling).
So my choice was easy in the end: better AND cheaper.

[blueturtl]

My recommendation would be to get a dual core system with a higher clock rate. If the CPUs are otherwise comparable in features you will get a faster system with a lower power draw and temps.

Most consumer types I've talked about seem to think that the amount of cores is directly relational to the performance of a CPU. One person I talked to actually thought that a dual core 3 GHz system would be equal to a 6 GHz single chip or something like that (meaning twice as fast at anything).

Logically it would easily follow that having more cores with a lower clock will compensate for the difference just because there are more of them.

In the real world though, most computer programs tend to do poorly on multicore systems because the type of data processing used in them simply does not lend itself to load sharing. It's not even a matter of optimizing the code or anything like that. Some stuff just isn't divisible in this way. So what this means is that for most users, a really fast single core system will almost always oust a system with multiple cores clocked at a lower speed. If a system fails to make use of two cores, three or four is already a pretty big waste.

Marketing produces this stuff:
Low power video cards with insane amounts of on-board memory.
A really high-end system with a really insignificant amount of RAM.
CPUs with lot's and lot's of cores (most of which just sit there and idle)
etc.

[chaumo]

If you were comparing Athlon II X2 (higher MHz) vs Athlon II X4 (lower MHz) or Phenom II X2 (higher Mhz) vs Phenom II X4 (lower MHz) I would recommend the quad...

But you are comparing an Athlon II X4 with a Phenom II X2 so if the prices are similar go for the Phenom, it's quite better than athlon.

It's like comparing a common Intel Core Quad with the new i5...i5 will be better even if it's 2 cores.

[Skripka]

So my choice was easy in the end: better AND cheaper.

I'm using a Phenom2 clocked higher than your quad, that cost a lot less. And I have as good or better performance and is still FAR cheaper. So no, your argument doesn't hold water for someone trying to save money.

[Skripka]

Thank you for the quick replys. I love the ubuntu forums and it's community. I didn't think i'd have input so soon,i was about to go to bed and was pleased with all the input. I'll be checking back and reading what people say over the next few days, and probably tell my friend what to get on Monday. Thank you,

Also, my question doesn't have to pertain to those specific procs. It's also a general question as to a generic better faster proc with fewer cores vs generic proc with more cores.

Also, price is a concern, so we're not going with newest latest greatest stuff/top of the line. To be honest, probably going to order the parts from tigerdirect. And motherboard/cpu combo is running about $160.00 then going to have to purchase memory also.

The motherboards looking at have integrated video, which i know isn't the best (but probably better then his older videocard?? you think?) With a future purchase of a new video card later on. Unless i can talk him into swinging some more cash for a video card also.

Thanks again. I'm looking forward to any and all input.

P.S. Is there a big difference between the pc6400 800mhz vs pc8500 1066mhz? Worth it? I was thinking it would probably help with the integrated video? If not atleast some type of performance increase?

If your pal is doing ANY kind of graphics intensive gaming, get a dedicated GPU. He will get annoyed VERY quickly at the poor performance due to penny pinching. Just about any dedicated card, regardless of generation is better than dedicated video.

Faster RAM is better, but 800mHz will do fine. Be warned, that AMD CPUs don't like to overclock via FSB with 4DIMM slots that are full. Make sure you check the mainboard before buying, that it takes DDR2 RAM. AM2+ mainboards are what you want in that case, AM3 are for DDR3.

[gjoellee]

To anyone reading this, thanks in advance for the input. I'm just looking for some general opinions/insight on what you think. Not really ubuntu/linux related.

I'm helping a friend with basically build/upgrade his computer cheaply. As of now, we're just upgrading motherboard/cpu. And for the price,i'm debating two options. A faster clock speed dual core, or a slower clock speed quad core. the two procs looking at are AMD's:

1. AMD Phenom II X2 550 Black Edition Dual Core Processor
- Processor Speed: 3.10GHz
- Cache Size: 2MB
- Processor Socket: AM3

or

2. AMD Athlon II X4 620 Quad Core Processor
- Processor Speed: 2.6GHz
- Cache Size: 2MB
- Processor Socket: AM3

Basically he'll be running XP, playing a flight sim game, watching movies. He doesn't really do alot of multitasking. Usually only has a couple windows open on the screen. And to be honest, i think he'll probably be running some older software, and if he does upgrade to windows vista/7 in the future he will probably stay with 32 bit since he has older 32 bit software. And hopefully he'll experiment with ubuntu after i get him setup.

I believe the phenom is a better proc, or would it be better for the 4 cores. price is about the same. Future wise i'm leaning to the 4 core, but i don't think he'll benefit so i'm thinking instant gratification from the faster dual core phenom.

Looking forward to what anyone has to say. Thanks

Even though you don't do a lot of multitasking, you should take that quad core. You will get better overall performance.

[khelben1979]

Quad core, because dual core is older technology. Why pay a lot of money for older technology if the price is the same?

Multi-core processor on Wiki. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-core_processor) might add some extra pepper and salt on this discussion, perhaps? :-k

[MooPi]

I own the AthlonII X4 620 and I can attest to it's speed and abilities. Very fast and very overclockable. Stock speed is 2.6 GHz, and I had mine up to 3.6. I've since backed it down to 3.2 GHz because I don't need the over powering speed and would like to extend the life time of the CPU to it's fullest. I suggest the 620 Propus.

[cartman640]

I'm using a Phenom2 clocked higher than your quad, that cost a lot less. And I have as good or better performance and is still FAR cheaper. So no, your argument doesn't hold water for someone trying to save money.
Except for the fact that your CPU came out two years after bvanaerde's Q6600. So yes, your CPU is cheaper and at that clock speed faster, but waiting for two years to get the same product cheaper isn't really going to work when you need a system now.

I'd recommend the quad, it will be faster and it will last longer. It might well be the case that apps don't utilise all cores right now, but they will. Intel's current CPU's run 8 threads as it is, 12 thread CPU's are on their way, software developers will write software for N-cored systems. Even on single thread apps, you can have the app fully using a core without having to share that resource with the rest of the system, so the computer remains responsive.

Another note, if it is going to be Windows, don't bother with XP, it doesn't properly support multi-core CPUs, and it's slow, I'd recommend going with Windows 7 64bit, will run much better. There's also no reason not to go 64 bit, 32 bit apps still run fine, I've been running 64bit on all of my systems (Windows, Linux and Mac) for quite some time, and have had no problems with software not working. You'll also find that more and more software is coming out in 64 bit variants too.

[kmsalex]

I would go with the phenom, its genarably a better architecture. higher overclocking potential, plus the level 3 cash that the athalon does't have. also if the "flight sim game" is flight simulator x you should defiantly get a good video card, at least 256mb if not 512 mb from the last 3 years, direct x10 support it's necessary defiantly not 11 since xp only supports x9 and flight simulator x only parshley supports x10. and being that the game is from 2006 it won't utalise multiple core's very well, with my set up 2.16ghz pentium dule core 3 gb ram and an intel gma 4500 it runs chopy at upper-low stings. in shourt its offten better to just build from the scrach. here are some licks to parts i may be geting for a buget system.
JetWay Motherboard
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813153120&nm_mc=OTC-Froogle&cm_mmc=OTC-Froogle-_-Motherboards+-+AMD-_-JETWAY-_-13153120
AMD Athlon II X2 240 Regor 2.8GHz
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103688
crucial 1gb
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148239
SAPPHIRE 100292L Radeon HD 5450
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102876&Tpk=Sapphire%20ATI%20HD5450
cd/dvd drive
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827118033&cm_re=cd_drive-_-27-118-033-_-Product
tower with psu
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811147001&cm_re=tower_case_with_power_supply-_-11-147-001-_-Product

subtotal:$265.93

I've been looking for a good priced 8-16 gb sata ssd
throw in the needed cables and it's a new system for $275-$300.

[khelben1979]

Another note, if it is going to be Windows, don't bother with XP, it doesn't properly support multi-core CPUs, and it's slow, I'd recommend going with Windows 7 64bit, will run much better.

I see. Do you have any sources which supports your claim about Windows 7 being faster than XP using several cpu cores?

[bvanaerde]

I'm using a Phenom2 clocked higher than your quad, that cost a lot less. And I have as good or better performance and is still FAR cheaper. So no, your argument doesn't hold water for someone trying to save money.

Well, good on you for finding the best deal.
But at the time I was buying my new PC (2 years ago), I had to choose between quad core 2.4GHz (cheaper) and dual core 3.0GHz. The quad core could be overclocked easily, so it was a logical choice for me.

As I recall correctly, the Phenom2 was released somewhere in january 2009

[sxmaxchine]

Quad core, because dual core is older technology. Why pay a lot of money for older technology if the price is the same?

Multi-core processor on Wiki. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-core_processor) might add some extra pepper and salt on this discussion, perhaps? :-k

to be technical the phenom x2 is new technology, the actualy cpu was meant to be a quad but when they made it there was a problem with 2 of the four cores and to save money they simply disabled the broken cores making it an advanced dual core

[blueshiftoverwatch]

to be technical the phenom x2 is new technology, the actualy cpu was meant to be a quad but when they made it there was a problem with 2 of the four cores and to save money they simply disabled the broken cores making it an advanced dual core
I assume you meant the Phenom II X4 and I thought it was only Intel that was doing that was making their quad cores by putting two duel cores, not AMD as well.

[swoll1980]

I just faced the same choice (sale at Microcenter on the two) I went with the phenom. It really depends what your using it for. I wanted to play some games, so the higher clock speed out weighed more cores. Most games don't even use more than one core anyways.

[rJ~]

The choice between dual core and quad core at a certain price point really depends on the CPU load of whatever you're running.

On the technology side, the Athlon II shares CPU architecture (K10) with Phenom II. The only difference is the Athlon II lacks l3 cache. Phenom/Athlon II is a native quad-core and not two dual-cores glued together, but that doesn't stop AMD from disabling a core or two to create the tri- and dual-core lineups.

My initial suggestion would be a Phenom II X2 or X3 for anyone wanting to do a bit of gaming. But like someone suggested you should look up benchmarks for the CPUs you're considering and pick the one that performs best at the most common/demanding tasks.

As a side note, May 2010 is rumoured to be the release month of AMD's six core Phenoms and 890 series motherboard chipsets. The six core Phenoms are supposed to be backwards compatible with am2+/am3 sockets so it might be a good idea to pick a motherboard manufacturer that reliably release bios updates.

[carbonbased]

You said cheaper, so get a MB that will allow him to add a more advance CPU for several years to come, but start him out with the dual core for price. From your descriptions, he won't need more than the dual-core. Oh course, much depends on the other hardware he's running. Take into account the system memory, HD & partitioning, video card. Any bottlenecks in the system? Got a power supply to support the system's demands?

Go with 64 bit too, not 32. It's faster.

Take care to avoid bottlenecks.

[SirWeazel]

I know its a little late, but thanks for all the advice.

[mips]

I know its a little late, but thanks for all the advice.

Might help if you provided feedback wrt what you ended up getting in the end.

[SirWeazel]

Might help if you provided feedback wrt what you ended up getting in the end.

Sorry for the late late late reply. Everyones feedback was good, and even looking/re-reading everyone's posts i still consistently sway back and forth. The final decision became simple because of what was in stock.

Went with the quad core. Picked the quad because it was still available when i went to order and i "felt" it had the potential to give more life to his pc. To me, the multicore technology appeared to be were the future was going, and when/if he updated his os/software it would utilize the multiple cores more. -- that was my thinking at the time.

In reality..... "life" took over, and my friends pc moved to the basement (man cave) and was/is barely used. He had good intentions of using it for alot of stuff, but distractions came and went, and to this day it has only been used handful of times. So any choice would have been fine.

For anyone still reading/following this thread... An interesting follow up question for people who where faced with the similar choice. If you were debating/following the dual core vs quad core question, what did you choose and looking back at it did you make the right choice? Also the debate is still relevant today. Better to have more cores or faster clocks? Where is the tech going?

[CharlesA]

I'd probably just go with a Quad core or higher now-a-days. I replaced my dual core desktop with a quad a couple months ago and it is much snappier if I am running VMs. Special situation there, but I don't really see the point of getting dual cores when quads are so cheap.