Fast dual-core or fast quad-core ?

Discussion in 'hardware' started by Fly, May 21, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Fly

    Fly Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    Posts:
    2,069
    Which one is faster, assuming you have the same budget ?

    When is a dual-core better, when a quad-core ?

    It's something I have to decide for my new computer that will run Windows 7 64 bit.
     
  2. SweX

    SweX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Posts:
    6,429
    Hi Fly!

    Well, it really depends what you likely will do with the PC?

    Gaming, foto/movie editing, working with heavy graphichs etc.. I would say Quad!

    But i'f you are just going to surf around the Net checking your email etc..
    then you could go for a Dual-core, Though, I would still choose the Quad:D

    Here you got a site that is updated daily, wich includs many Processor from low-end to high-end in Benchmarks

    But as in many cases I guess it's the wallet that will pick one for you :)
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2010
  3. lotuseclat79

    lotuseclat79 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    5,101
    Hi Fly,

    The attribute you are interested in is in determing how many applications that you run are programmed to take advantage of either dual-core or quad-core. My guess is there may be more for dual-core than quad-core at this point in time. But then again, if you are thinking ot the future - go for quad-core as the trend will make it a better long-term purchase despite the current cost (less turn-over for your system components over time).

    -- Tom
     
  4. linuxforall

    linuxforall Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Posts:
    2,136
    Quad or i7, will be better long term.
     
  5. Fly

    Fly Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    Posts:
    2,069
    Thank you. Good advice.

    But I wonder if quad-core really will be the future for desktops.

    Till recently CPUs had a single core. I wouldn't be surprised if new performance improvements would take us back to a single core at some point in the future. In a way, four cores in a CPU is a bit odd.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2010
  6. Fly

    Fly Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    Posts:
    2,069
    Just a comparison: two quad cores:

    i5 750
    i7 860

    Which dual cores might be preferable in terms of current performance, given the same budget ?

    I know, it depends on what you use it for.
    Multi-purpose in my case.

    I'm not quite sure whether quad cores really will be the future on a time horizon of 5 or more years.
    And will quad cores without hyperthreading be useful at all ?
     
  7. JRViejo

    JRViejo Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Posts:
    20,968
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    Fly, the CPU Benchmark link that Swex provided, is a very good source for CPU comparisons. Take your two:

    Intel Core i5 750 @ 2.67GHz (ranked #54)
    Intel Core i7 860 @ 2.80GHz (ranked #23)

    While it's hard to predict the future and keep up with new technology, six core CPUs have been already introduced:

    Intel debuts six-core gaming chip | AMD offers six-core CPUs for the rest of us

    Even going further out on a limb: Intel Demos Working System Based on 48-Core Chip.

    Bottom line: set a budget first and buy the best you can afford within that budget.
     
  8. Fly

    Fly Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    Posts:
    2,069
    Thank you for your replies.

    Although technically not related to the question of this topic: which devices other than the CPU are worth buying ?

    I understand SSDs are fast, but they are also expensive and have little capacity. So probably not worth it, since I have a limited budget.
    Obviously monitor, keyboard etc.

    What about other devices ?
    I'm a bit out of the game, I bought this computer 7 years ago.
    The new computer will be custom-made.

    I guess I will have a dual boot Windows 7 64 bit /Linux system, although I don't know how this will be set up. Any suggestions for a particular flavor of Linux and how to set up the dual boot ? I want whatever I do in Linux to keep in Linux, and not in Windows' data grabber's collection.

    Applocker seems nice, but since it's only in the Enterprise version it's probably not worth it. For as far as I can see, 7 Professional doesn't offer any advantages over 7 Home Premium. Or am I missing something ?
     
  9. Martijn2

    Martijn2 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Posts:
    321
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Dual core's are more easier to overclock, are cheaper, and consume less power. Quad core's are better in multi-tasking (and have more speed in apps which take advantage of multiple cores. )
     
  10. NoIos

    NoIos Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Posts:
    607
    Gaming: best solution quad cores with high default clock ( 3+ )
    Really good solution: Dual cores with high clock ( 3+ )

    For the rest I would choose a quad without a doubt.

    Exceptions:
    - If you are really interested in running specific applications that are not taking advantage of multi-cpu systems.
    - Fast hdd and VGA will give a great hand to any cpu...these become more important if you have the horse power. So attention to not have bottlenecks.
     
  11. Searching_ _ _

    Searching_ _ _ Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Posts:
    1,988
    Location:
    iAnywhere
    I think the only reason to choose an i7 over a Dual Core is for the motherboard options available to the i7 that are not available to the Dual Core.
    Like 7 PCI-E x16 2.0 slots 1 x16, 3 x16/x8, 3 x8
    Don't forget the 3500 dollars worth of Graphics cards to go into those slots.
    480 stream processors x 7.

    The only thing better than this would be 10 of them set up in a cluster.
    How much did you say was in your budget?
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.