Hi I was just wondering, is it worth it getting a quad-core instead of a really fast dual-core? I think faster and newer (quad) is better, but will one be able to fully use all it's capacity before the lifecycle (2-3 years) of a new computer is over?? On the other hand, dual core can be cheaper and still be (and stay) very fast... So would you go for the extra cost of a quad-core or stay with a dual-core?
Quad, even if its got lower GHz, its got 4. So if 2 core 4GHz each had it, it would provide 8GHz 4 quad 4Ghz, it would be 16 Ghz
Id go for quad-core if only cause of Folding@home BTW computer geek, you dont add the speeds of each core together. 4 cores x 4GHz doesnt not equal 16GHz.
I bought a 2 core processor to improve multi-tasking, not especially for speed. On my old computer, when my scheduled AV scanner was running, I felt a significant slowdown in my other applications, even my typing speed wasn't the same anymore. On my new computer, I didn't even notice my scanner was running. I guess a 4 core processor will probably improve multi-tasking even more than a 2 core.
Of course it don't, each core produces 4GHz, so if all the work is spread out equally, it should theoretically be working at 16GHz.
Have a quad - overall speed is more limited by disk access (even though its SATA300) than CPU. Unless you use a lot of applications simultaneously I don't think its worth the extra $ for the quad.
I have both and for every day computing by the average user a dual core would be a good and cheaper $ choice.
Dual core if you are on a budget, but if you have the money to spent then I think Quad Cores is the best. Can you just imagined of a four muscle groups that works to run your pc? The higher the number of cores that it have the best the performance and power it could be. As simple as that.
Depends entirely on what you use your computer for, quad will assist if you do lots of video editing, should help as someone else said if you run many applications simultaneously, ( me, I can only manage one or two) games will eventually make full use of the quads, or if it's bragging rights then you prolly want quad. Otherwise I'd put my money to use elsewhere. In some respects it's like the people who buy the big off road vehicles to drive around town and never go off road. Buy what you need, and/or will use.
i like my Quad core. newer games are being made to make use of multiple cores. most av's are being made to take advantage of mutiple cores etc. a intel quad core Q6600 costs around £136 as pointed out the main limits of computers atm are the hard drive speed which cant always keep up with all the muti tasking. hopefully SSD drives come down in price soon so i can buy one for my system drive.
P4 HT emulating a dual core and an Intel core 2 duo. New PC down the track will be a quad along with either raptor drives and or 500 gig 32 meg cache sata?
Anything more then 8-16MB cache just helps when writhing to the drive. the best atm is the 1TB drives from samsung with 320gb platters. fast and big capacity. the WD VelociRaptor 300gb is coming out soon. link
If you can afford it: Quad. More is better, even although not all programs fully use it. I got a Q6600 by the way and I like it .
If the price difference isn't too large (or if you can afford it) go with Quad. My main desktop is currently a Q6600 and it's great (hardly ever max out all four cores). I was just setting up my sister's computer for her, a dual-core, and was amazed at how often I maxed out both cores.
I bought Phenom 9600 BE, but I switched back and I bought 3x times cheaper, but faster Athlon X2 5000+ BE, which also takes less energy, so less heat is produced even whe overlocked. Gamers will not take advantage of Quad core just yet, based on the test I saw last week, but I can not find the link.
This chart comparing high end CPU's is made using thousands of PerformanceTest benchmark results and is updated daily. These are the high end AMD and Intel CPU's are typically those found in newer computers. CPU Benchmark
Great when running my VMs but other times I'm not using the capacity and performance available, ah well suppose we'll have to wait. I needed yet another machine and was thinking at the time a high clock speed would be sufficient, still I built a quad .
Dual core already makes a difference regarding multi-tasking, I noticed this myself when I bought my new computer. So 4 core will do even better, but do you really need it ? is it worth the investment ? is another issue. Hardware is already OLD, when you pay for it. So what's the point ?
I have a computer with C2D and one with QC2D. They both run at 2.4Ghz. The quad does things like encode/decode amazingly fast. The quad also gets very hot and power hungry. The dual does everything else like browsing, gaming, writing, etc. as fast or almost as fast as the quad without the heat or power issues. I guess it depends on what you need.
I think I know the answer but will ask just to be sure. Dual will run quieter then a quad?? Yes?? I like a quiet machine and my needs would be less then the power users for sure. More fan power to cool??
No, usually not. On average, a quad core is running at lower speeds then a dual core is. I got a quad and it's steady at about 35* idle en 60* stressed. CPU fan running at aprox. 30% capacity.
Intent to upgarde and this is what I want to know... Dual or Quad. I listen to mp3 while surfing or doing my work... sometime when playing with CAD or Graphic editor... my old AMD 3500 just getting slow and lag... Maybe a Dual is better...
Dual is more affordable and is all I needed given what I use my machine for based on my research. So I recently bought PC 1 in my sig. (Since my last post above). Thanks for the info. too, Eagle Creek.
