Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 42

Thread: Dual vs Quad

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Beans
    98

    Re: Dual vs Quad

    What about the specific applications I run: Ubuntu, Firefox, Picasa, Gimp and also online video.

    I like the Athlon II suggestion. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-706-_-Product

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    4newOtherOSTalk4umCsig
    Beans
    555

    Re: Dual vs Quad

    Quote Originally Posted by Gosport View Post
    What about the specific applications I run: Ubuntu, Firefox, Picasa, Gimp and also online video.

    I like the Athlon II suggestion. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-706-_-Product
    The reason that CPU is so cheap is because it has NO L3 cache at all.
    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

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Sweden
    Beans
    2,198

    Re: Dual vs Quad

    Quote Originally Posted by forrestcupp View Post
    If you're running mostly single threaded apps, a 3.0 GHz dual core will beat the pants off of a 2.3 GHz quad core because you're only using 1 of the cores. The only things more cores will help with are multi-threaded apps, and if you're running a heck of a lot of apps all at once.
    Quad core might not be the best alternative today, but if he intends to keep it for the coming 10 years, then quad core is the way to go. Cheap quad cores has arrived to the market and I would recommend this review from AnandTech.

    I myself bought my Pentium 4 processor 7 years ago in november and I might do the same once I go over to quad cores when I do (or if I get something better, you never know..)
    Debian 8.0 "Jessie"
    HP laptop (15-ab064no-Nordic)
    Linux user since 1999.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Beans
    98

    Re: Dual vs Quad

    Quote Originally Posted by Skripka View Post
    The reason that CPU is so cheap is because it has NO L3 cache at all.
    Dose that matter so much if I'm not a gamer?

    Check out these benchmarks from PasMark:
    http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_look...hlon+II+X4+620
    and
    http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_look...enom+II+X2+545

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Beans
    341

    Re: Dual vs Quad

    If you're not a gamer, it hardly matters. Buy what serves you now. You can upgrade when the software catches up to the hardware. In Windows 7, Microsoft is AFAIK, not imposing hefty new requirements to run it.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    California Republic
    Beans
    2,657

    Re: Dual vs Quad

    maybe a bit off topic,

    your computer will only move as fast as the slowest part of whatever you are trying to do.

    Western Digital Caviar Black WD6401AALS 640GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive - OEM
    have you considered as solid state drive?

    i am very happy with my decision to use this 60gb ssd as my primary internal hard drive - even if it is a 2.5" laptop hard drive duct taped to the inside of my case.

    (no moving parts = really no reason to bother mounting it firmly.)
    Semper Fi

    My Non-Ubuntu Blog.
    All posts by me are Public Domain.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Beans
    98

    Re: Dual vs Quad

    Quote Originally Posted by earthpigg View Post
    maybe a bit off topic,

    your computer will only move as fast as the slowest part of whatever you are trying to do.



    have you considered as solid state drive?

    i am very happy with my decision to use this 60gb ssd as my primary internal hard drive - even if it is a 2.5" laptop hard drive duct taped to the inside of my case.

    (no moving parts = really no reason to bother mounting it firmly.)
    This is not "off topic" at all. I am looking for the best system, for me, overall (though you are pushing me out of my budget). Thank you for the suggestion.
    Last edited by Gosport; September 22nd, 2009 at 10:26 PM.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Edubuntu 8.04 Hardy Heron

    Re: Dual vs Quad

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by earthpigg View Post
    maybe a bit off topic,

    your computer will only move as fast as the slowest part of whatever you are trying to do.



    have you considered as solid state drive?

    i am very happy with my decision to use this 60gb ssd as my primary internal hard drive - even if it is a 2.5" laptop hard drive duct taped to the inside of my case.

    (no moving parts = really no reason to bother mounting it firmly.)
    I'm also happy with my SSD, however, I didn't bother with the duck tape.
    You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Beans
    98

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Beans
    Hidden!

    Re: Dual vs Quad

    I'd go with the quad .... because of the small price delta and the "expansion"possibilities (as your computing grows). Also, I would look at a faster HD.
    "The key to everything is patience. You get the chicken by hatching the egg, not by smashing it" .... A. Glasow

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... 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
  •