PDA

View Full Version : Dual core 3ghz cpu or a 2.4ghz quad core?



Luigi239
November 23rd, 2007, 05:21 PM
I am buying a new system from dell, and I have a choice between a 2.4ghz intel quad core, or a 3ghz core 2 duo. Which is better? I plan on doing a fair amount of gaming on this machine, as well as a little bit of video encoding. I have read that for gaming, a faster dual is better, as most games are still single threaded.

Any help would be appreciated :)

happysmileman
November 23rd, 2007, 05:27 PM
I am buying a new system from dell, and I have a choice between a 2.4ghz intel quad core, or a 3ghz core 2 duo. Which is better? I plan on doing a fair amount of gaming on this machine, as well as a little bit of video encoding. I have read that for gaming, a faster dual is better, as most games are still single threaded.

Most games nowadays are single-threaded, but most companies are now starting to develop multi-threaded, and even if it was only using a single core, 2.4Ghz is enough for most games, in the near future the advantages of the quad-core should really be seen.

s3a
November 23rd, 2007, 05:41 PM
I would go for the Quad since they are both obviously really fast per single core so the only slowdown on games that wont use all its cores will not be seen by you AT ALL! And if you multitask, YOU WILL SEE the difference in speed with the quad-core! And by the way, games that are dual-threaded are pretty popular now but eventually games will be able to use all four cores of the CPU. You're not paying anything extra in order to get Quad, right?
If not, please, please, do the right thing and get the Quad! ;)

Luigi239
November 23rd, 2007, 05:50 PM
Hmm, well the quad is actually 50$ cheaper than the 3ghz dual...:P

So get the quad? I would be nice to put the 50$ towards tthe 300$ graphics gard that I want. Does anybody know if Flight Sim X is multi threaded for quad? That is the main game that I will be playing.

mellowd
November 23rd, 2007, 05:52 PM
What do you want to do with it? Right now a faster dual core is better for games. When it comes to video crunching and the like, as long as the application takes of advatage of it the quad core will be better

Luigi239
November 23rd, 2007, 05:57 PM
What do you want to do with it? Right now a faster dual core is better for games. When it comes to video crunching and the like, as long as the application takes of advatage of it the quad core will be better

Yeah, mainly gaming, very little video encoding.

I just read that Flight Sim X is not really multi-threaded, just like most of the other games right now. I guess what I really need to know is, as time goes on, which will be more future proof?

mellowd
November 23rd, 2007, 05:58 PM
If I were you and wanted to mainly play games I would go with the faster specced dual core.

If you wanted to keep this pc for 3-4 years maybe the slower quad

s3a
November 23rd, 2007, 06:08 PM
What do you want to do with it? Right now a faster dual core is better for games. When it comes to video crunching and the like, as long as the application takes of advatage of it the quad core will be better
Dual will be better for games, but wont see the difference in speed since both CPU's are extremely fast....

Luigi239,
in video editing you will see the difference since, the time it will take to finish encoding will obviously be shorter! Get the Quad!

esaym
November 23rd, 2007, 10:00 PM
What applications are threaded? If I encode an mp3 would it use all 4 cores? Is there a wiki or anything on the current multi threaded apps?

~LoKe
November 23rd, 2007, 10:08 PM
A single application might not spread itself over all four cores, but multiple applications will. Personally, I love my quad core because I can crunch sha1 or folding@home on all four cores. Mind you, it's OC'd to 3.6GHz, so that really doesn't answer your question. ;)

Luigi239
November 24th, 2007, 05:51 AM
Alright, well, I decided to listen to go against popular opinion, and I went with the 3ghz dual. It was actually 50$ more than the 2.4 quad, but it does have 600mhz more power per core, and a faster fsb. It just made sense to me, as for gaming, most games arn't going to take advantage of the dual cores, and for (most) of the rest of the things that I do, two cores will be fine. I don't mind waiting an extra 10 minutes for my video to encode.

I guess it really doesn't matter, as both are extremely capable cpu's.

Gahh, now I'm wondering if I should call Dell and have them change it. Dammit. :P

D-EJ915
November 24th, 2007, 06:04 AM
I'd keep it, you'll get faster gaming and unless you do hardcore folding or something it won't make any difference with the quad at the moment.

Luigi239
November 24th, 2007, 06:08 AM
I'd keep it, you'll get faster gaming and unless you do hardcore folding or something it won't make any difference with the quad at the moment.

Yeah, well I guess this is one that I will just have to sleep on. I do plan on doing folding when I'm not using the machine, but like I said, a dual 3ghz will be plenty for folding. Either way, I suppose it's a wash. Quad gives you more raw performance, but with the dual you can make better use of that performance in alot of tasks.

-grubby
November 24th, 2007, 06:10 AM
(not being serious) I think the best decision would be to buy both and give one of them to me:-k

Luigi239
November 24th, 2007, 06:29 AM
(not being serious) I think the best decision would be to buy both and give one of them to me:-k

Yeah sure, but I am already overbudget :P. I sold my Macbook to get this machine for 1250, and just spent about 1350. Stupid money, why can't everything be free? D:

~LoKe
November 24th, 2007, 06:29 AM
I don't see why you'd pay $50 more for a dual...

2.4 * 4 = 9.6GHz
3.0 * 2 = 6.0GHz

...

-grubby
November 24th, 2007, 06:32 AM
Yeah sure, but I am already overbudget :P. I sold my Macbook to get this machine for 1250, and just spent about 1350. Stupid money, why can't everything be free? D:

yah know as an early b-day present. My birthday is only what.....1,2,3,4,5 months away!

Luigi239
November 24th, 2007, 06:35 AM
Yeah sure, but I am already overbudget :P. I sold my Macbook to get this machine for 1250, and just spent about 1350. Stupid money, why can't everything be free? D:
Yeah that didn't make much sense to me either, but it may have something to do with the faster bus...


yah know as an early b-day present. My birthday is only what.....1,2,3,4,5 months away!

Naw, how bout a st. patty's day present. I'll spray paint it green for you, so you can have some luck of the Irish. D:

Fbot1
November 24th, 2007, 06:58 AM
I don't see why you'd pay $50 more for a dual...

2.4 * 4 = 9.6GHz
3.0 * 2 = 6.0GHz

...

That's not really how it works...

mellowd
November 24th, 2007, 08:51 AM
I don't see why you'd pay $50 more for a dual...

2.4 * 4 = 9.6GHz
3.0 * 2 = 6.0GHz

...

Not quite

-grubby
November 24th, 2007, 09:03 AM
Yeah that didn't make much sense to me either, but it may have something to do with the faster bus...



Naw, how bout a st. patty's day present. I'll spray paint it green for you, so you can have some luck of the Irish. D:

nah, don't like the color green very much

gn2
November 24th, 2007, 10:29 AM
I guess what I really need to know is, as time goes on, which will be more future proof?

Neither.

The term "Future proof" is just a marketing term used to coax consumers into buying high spec expensive hardware that they probably don't need.
All hardware you buy will be superceded in time.

By the time software which takes best advantage of four cores is commonplace, the Q6600 will be "old hat"

Get a Core 2 Duo E6750 rather than a Quad Core.
Significantly lower TDP, so uses less electricity, runs cooler, quieter and more potential to overclock and faster in many apps and cheaper.

Check out the Tom's Hardware Guide CPU charts for comparison.

~LoKe
November 24th, 2007, 02:08 PM
That's not really how it works...

Sure it is. While one individual application won't be able to use all four cores, multiple applications will. The total amount of processing power will be greater.

mellowd
November 24th, 2007, 02:28 PM
Sure it is. While one individual application won't be able to use all four cores, multiple applications will. The total amount of processing power will be greater.

Greater, but it doesn't add up like that.

gn2
November 24th, 2007, 02:47 PM
Greater, but it doesn't add up like that.

Correct, because each core doesn't have it's own cache memory and also has to share the RAM with the others.

mellowd
November 24th, 2007, 02:49 PM
Correct, because each core doesn't have it's own cache memory and also has to share the RAM with the others.

That's right. There is also overhead keeping the cores and processes in sync which uses cpu power

bruce89
November 24th, 2007, 03:46 PM
I just read that Flight Sim X is not really multi-threaded, just like most of the other games right now. I guess what I really need to know is, as time goes on, which will be more future proof?

Not a game, but X-Plane (http://www.x-plane.com) is multi-threaded for loading of scenery. They are releasing 9.00 (http://www.x-plane.com/beta.html) soon. There's even a Linux port.


Neither.

The term "Future proof" is just a marketing term used to coax consumers into buying high spec expensive hardware that they probably don't need.
All hardware you buy will be superceded in time.

Indeed, that's the phrase they used when I got my socket 939 motherboard, and not long after, the AM2 is the one.

Nachowarrior
November 24th, 2007, 04:11 PM
dude.... really, just get amd's 2.6 ghz black edition then you can oc it to 3.2ghz. dual core for 130 bucks on newegg... get the brisbane one less power consumption and hardly any difference in performance. anyway. then you can just scale your proc to whatever you want to do. and remember with an integrated memory controller you hit 2.8 and 3.2 for the best memory speeds. :-p then you don't have to pay a rediculous sum of money and get a good proc in the end

Nachowarrior
November 24th, 2007, 04:18 PM
you really want to buy an inexpensive build that'll last you a year or two and sell it and build a new one... that's the way i'm doing it... only my new build is up just over a grand.... WHOOPS and my old build wasn't worth but 500 bucks. :-p so really it's an investment in a new computer down the road... something, that in 2 years, will have a good price/ performance ratio and be achieveable with a wad of cash to most people... like say 6-800 bones for a decent game setup... maybe including a monitor or not... depending on what you build it up on...

main point being, keep YOUR cost down and keep performance reasonable that will last you a year, not 5 years. but will still look great to someone who doesn't know about the leading edge hardware and the like.

ps: my new one is for sale as soon as i build it if anyone is interested. :-p

mellowd
November 24th, 2007, 04:18 PM
Indeed, that's the phrase they used when I got my socket 939 motherboard, and not long after, the AM2 is the one.

Too true. 939, then 940, then AM2, now AM2+

I'm still running a 939 board in my main PC and I'm still happy with it's performance.

~LoKe
November 24th, 2007, 04:56 PM
Greater, but it doesn't add up like that.

Of course it doesn't. But how many people run an app that would use that much resource anyways? Games are mostly dependent on the video card, ram, then CPU third. That tells me that a dual core is little if any better for gaming than a quad core. Now, if you're a graphic designer, and catch yourself with Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Office Suite (does anyone still use this POS?) open all at once, the quad core will destroy the dual.

But hey, what do I know, I only have a 3.36GHz C2D and a 3.6GHz C2Q. :rolleyes:

mysticrider92
November 24th, 2007, 04:59 PM
Too true. 939, then 940, then AM2, now AM2+

I'm still running a 939 board in my main PC and I'm still happy with it's performance.

The AM2+ doesn't really mean anything, that would just be a board for an easier transition to AM3. I don't see where it would help much, but I am not the one designing the boards... Btw, nice to see some other 939 users..

For the OP, since you mentioned video editing, the quad would be a better choice, but the 3.0ghz Core 2 is an extremely fast processor. Either way, you will notice a huge difference from whatever you are replacing it with.

mellowd
November 24th, 2007, 05:13 PM
That tells me that a dual core is little if any better for gaming than a quad core.



The Dual core has better raw performance. This is what single threaded games will take better advantage of.

andhar
November 24th, 2007, 06:56 PM
unfortunatly AMDs offerings aren't matching Intel perfomance wise, Phenom sucked after all the hype about being a "real" quad core..

I just got a Q6600 and I was running an E6600 before that, both of them are overclocked and honestly If I was to do it again I would be running 2 Q6600. I wouldn't even both to look at AMD.

This thing can handle everything I can throw at it and as far as gaming, the games that will take advantage of multiple cores are already here.

The most well known of which is at the moment Crysis. GL with you new box.

LO Matt
November 24th, 2007, 07:26 PM
Neither.

The term "Future proof" is just a marketing term used to coax consumers into buying high spec expensive hardware that they probably don't need.
All hardware you buy will be superceded in time.

By the time software which takes best advantage of four cores is commonplace, the Q6600 will be "old hat"

Get a Core 2 Duo E6750 rather than a Quad Core.
Significantly lower TDP, so uses less electricity, runs cooler, quieter and more potential to overclock and faster in many apps and cheaper.

Check out the Tom's Hardware Guide CPU charts for comparison.

+1

Dual will be better for gaming. Less power is good, and the quad is already approaching "old hat" now that penryn is out. :)

ssam
November 24th, 2007, 07:38 PM
are they same cpu type?

the intel core based chips are faster than pentium 4s at the same clock speed, because they can do more per cycle.

then new intel Penryn chips will do more per clock cycle than their predecesors.

andhar
November 24th, 2007, 07:51 PM
+1

Dual will be better for gaming. Less power is good, and the quad is already approaching "old hat" now that penryn is out. :)

since when is less power good? haha, as far as being "old" the technology is older yes but it doesnt mean that its still not an option.

BTW the consumer penryns wont be out till jan or feb..

mellowd
November 24th, 2007, 07:58 PM
since when is less power good? haha, as far as being "old" the technology is older yes but it doesnt mean that its still not an option.


Less power usage I think he was referring to. And anything that uses less power is better. The power of the chips are another matter

andhar
November 24th, 2007, 08:12 PM
o ok.

gn2
November 24th, 2007, 08:24 PM
since when is less power good?

Less electrical power is used by a Core 2 Duo E6750 than a Q6600 to perform the same tasks.

An E6750 also emits less heat than a Q6600.
TDP 65w -v- 105w

Because it emits less heat, less energy is required by the commonplace active cooling systems in almost all PC's, so the benefits are cumulative.

Also in terms of processing ability (often mistakenly referred to as power) the E6750 actually exceeds the Q6600 in many tasks.

In the UK an E6750 costs 116 http://www.ebuyer.com/product/130484

The Q6600 costs 167 http://www.ebuyer.com/product/131950

Almost 50% more expensive but slower in some benchmarks, hotter, noisier and more expensive to run.

You would have to be utterly mad to buy one.

andhar
November 24th, 2007, 08:37 PM
I thought he meant less power as in less performance. I know less power usage is good I am running a G0 stepping Q6600... As for hotter and noiser give me a break anyone who is going to buy a cpu like that knows what they want it for and how it will be ran.

Going into that upgrade I knew it was going to be overclocked on air with a tuniq tower that I had before I moved to a swiftech kit on the E6600. at Idle its running at 31C compared to the 24C of the water cooled pc. yes they run a bit hotter on air but for the gains none of that matters...

Buy a dual and be slower, an overclocked q6600 is hard to beat...think about it. I have yet to bog this machine down and I am heavy multi tasker.


Edit: Basically we can go on and on about who is right or wrong. what it does come down to is if you want over all speed or speed based on a few apps. Newer games eat quads for breakfast trust me we ran Crysis on a friends Q6600 at 3.6 on water and it ate it up. read up and make up your mind about what you want, I built for overall usability and encoding performance, I have a Q6600 @ 3.2 , 4Gbs DDR2 800, 1 - 320GB + 2x500GB Hard drives, adding a 3rd 500GB in a few days.

gn2
November 25th, 2007, 02:26 AM
As for hotter and noiser give me a break

Which would you prefer, an arm or a leg? Only kidding.
I take PC noise very seriously indeed and I absolutely despise noisy PC's.
There's no need for any PC to be noisy.

If I had to pick between a silent PC with Vista or a noisy one with Ubuntu, the quiet one would win every time.

Checkout the link in my sig.

andhar
November 25th, 2007, 04:07 AM
haha , my room sounds like a server farm so I am used to noise. I got used to noise when I was using an Alpha HSF with a 50db panaflo fan on it.. that was years ago! these days I can hear my room from the kitchen but its not the kind of noise thats annoying just a nice humm.

mellowd
November 25th, 2007, 09:47 AM
I much prefer silents PC's as well. The only time my PC actually makes any noise is when I'm running a game, and it doesn't matter then as my sound is blasting.

regomodo
November 26th, 2007, 01:49 AM
i spent a few days researching the same topic. everywhere i looked i found that everyone suggested getting a fast dual core, so thats what i did.

As of now i don't regret that

tjagoda
November 26th, 2007, 03:36 AM
Definitely, the Dual core is the way to go.

Anybody know when the quads will start to begin being taken advantage of?

inversekinetix
November 26th, 2007, 05:06 AM
You will find, obviously, that on tests you get more speed from the higher rated dual core, however I would not buy it. I've been using my quad core for 4 months now and I cannot fault it at all. Multitasking is a breeze, 4 cores (+8MB cache) crash through CPU intensive tasks like theres no tomorrow, having BIOSHOCK running on full while ripping DVDs and torrenting (up 22MB/s down 30MB/s) is no problem, when dual core is maxed I still have another 2 cores to go. If you want more more more speed, the quad core q6660 is amazing for overclocking. With the right MB and RAM you can have yourseld a system that is more than adequate for the next few years, all you would need to upgrade would be the GPU.

mellowd
November 26th, 2007, 08:50 AM
having BIOSHOCK running on full while ripping DVDs and torrenting (up 22MB/s down 30MB/s) is no problem, when dual core is maxed I still have another 2 cores to go.

I'm still running an older AMD 3800+ X2 and I can do the same. I've always got loads of things open yet run bioshock on top at maximum settings with no problems whatsover.

It's up to the programs if they are multi-core compatible or not. Those extra cores are going to stay unused unless the application knows how to use them

inversekinetix
November 26th, 2007, 09:06 AM
I'm still running an older AMD 3800+ X2 and I can do the same. I've always got loads of things open yet run bioshock on top at maximum settings with no problems whatsover.

It's up to the programs if they are multi-core compatible or not. Those extra cores are going to stay unused unless the application knows how to use them



so i cant run one application on one core another on another and so on? all open applications will run on one core?

andhar
November 26th, 2007, 09:19 AM
No , it will use the other cores regardless. it has to do with load. and I am running Photoshop + Dreamweaver + burning a dvd + torrenting + talking on msn with webcam on I see use of the other cores and the system is still solid..

inversekinetix
November 26th, 2007, 09:38 AM
No , it will use the other cores regardless. it has to do with load. and I am running Photoshop + Dreamweaver + burning a dvd + torrenting + talking on msn with webcam on I see use of the other cores and the system is still solid..


The torrents I was talking about consist of 50MB/s up/down combined with connections to 2000 peers, thats a lot of i/o r/w activity

andhar
November 26th, 2007, 10:03 AM
holy bejesus 1Gb Fibre? huh who how damn.... sniff sniff I want that.

Portable_Jim
December 25th, 2007, 10:14 PM
I am also wondering which to buy. I am not a gamer, however i can me myself running virtualised Windows.
I am pondering whether to buy a 2.66 dual core (E6750) or a 2.4 Quad core (Q6600) which it $100 more expensive.I am not into overclocking.

From what I have gathered:
Dual Core:
+ cheaper
+ faster clock
+ will oped a gedit document faster
+ faster speed limit so busses go faster [lol] - Faster bus speed

Quad Core:
+ MIght offer some speed benefit
- more power/ heat

hessiess
December 26th, 2007, 12:06 AM
pritymuch the only programs that actualy take advantage of multiple cores are raytrace/scanline renderers. unless you are a heavy multitascer.
i expect that vertual desctops are only able to acsess 1 core?