Dual Core or Quad Core?

[Andronicus]

Ok, so this isn't exactly searchbar approved, but it's been a while since the last topic, so the information may have become a little outdated now. Anyway, here goes:

So I'm putting together a gaming PC. I've (more or less) got all the parts, now all I need to do is put it together. I've never put a PC together before, much less a high-end gaming one, so it's a whole new experience to me, but that's another matter entirely.

The CPU I picked up is a quad core, the Core i5 760 [http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=48496]. However, in reassessing the alternatives, I noticed that dual cores seem to run at higher GHz, over the 3GHz mark, whereas mine only runs at 2.8GHz. And here's me automatically thinking 4 cores > 2 cores. So is it better to go with the CPU with the higher GHz, or higher number of cores?

I haven't even opened the box of the CPU yet, so I reckon I can probably change it over if needed. I intend to use the computer mostly for gaming, but am trying to keep the cost down, so I don't think I'll be moving up to the i7 range any time soon.

 

[oplinger]

Higher GHz mean it passes more data per cycle. It's nice but a lot of times 2.7 GHz is as high as it needs to be. 3 GHz tops to really get by. Anything past that and you just want to feel the power! D:<

More cores allows for multitasking if the application is multithreaded. I have a triple core processor, runs everything fine. Dual core works the best, as it's currently the industry standard, though 4 cores will be when more applications can manage to use all 4 cores efficiently.

All in all it depends, but as for gaming, going by the numbers, you'll see a GIANT performance leap going from single core to dual core. Going from dual to quad...you barely see much of anything.

Neither is better really. More cores or more GHz, it's a much better idea to have a mix of both. Or look further into your processor, see if it has trouble with compression, decoding, writing to cache, float point processing. That may be a bit over the top, but I have fun doing it :x

 

[TheComedown]

At the moment stick with the i5, games are finally starting to be programed to use the extra cores so you future proofed with the i5 but you'll find you'll need to upgrade soon if you go backwards to a dual core. Also if you send back that processor you'll have to get a new mother board as well.

 

[Slavik_91]

more cores>>>>more GHz

Unless maybe you're talking about a 1GHz dual core and a 3.2GHz single

 

[MercurySteam]

Me I want to upgrade from my Core 2 Duo to a Core 2 Quad or Extreme but a new power supply is in order first. I reckon that the i5 you have is pretty darn good, so you don't have much reason to complain. Trust me, it will serve you well.

 

[Andronicus]

look further into your processor, see if it has trouble with compression, decoding, writing to cache, float point processing. THat may be a bit over the top, but I have fun doing it :x

I... have no idea what that means. But I'm sure it's fun if you can make sense of it all!

As I said, I've currently got the i5 760, which has 4 cores and runs at 2.8GHz. The closest dual core price-wise in the same range is the i5 661, which runs at 3.33 GHz. That's a big jump in GHz. Are you saying there will effectively be very little noticeable difference between the two, despite such a large jump? Assume I run it at factory settings, rather than overclocking.

 

[Zacharine]

The difference between 2.8GHz and 3.0 GHz isn't all that meaningful.

But once programs and games begin to come with support for multiple cores, that quad is going to rock far more than a dual core.

So, the quad is sufficient for current gaming (which mainly use just one core), but is far more future-proof.

If worried about gaming performance, invest to faster memory (not really useful if already 4Gb or more of 1333MHz RAM), better graphics card, or a few extra case fans and overclock the CPU and graphics card by 2-10%.

 

[Danzaivar]

I'd suggest quad core.

Most games have several things going on at once, each of these processes can utilise a separate core on the CPU. So say you have a game running 4 processes, your quad-core can dedicate 2.7GHz of processing to each thread. Your dual core by comparison has to stack them two to a core, so they get ~1.5GHz per process.

Also consider things like the Operating System, Anti virus, media player in the background etc. Will all be taking up processor time as well.

The only real benefit to a higher clock speed on the CPU is also kind of negated by the fact that your graphics card will be doing the hefty graphics calculations anyway, which tends to be the big part of games.

- - -

Please note that the above is MASSIVELY simplified. Also the difference isn't that big, games these days will tend to run fine on either.

 

[Andronicus]

At the moment stick with the i5, games are finally starting to be programed to use the extra cores so you future proofed with the i5 but you'll find you'll need to upgrade soon if you go backwards to a dual core. Also if you send back that processor you'll have to get a new mother board as well.

The 661 uses the same chipset, so it would be fine if I changed it. It's just that I've looked around on the net, and the general consensus seems to be that Dual Core is better for gaming, and the Quad Core is better for multitasking.

 

[oplinger]

look further into your processor, see if it has trouble with compression, decoding, writing to cache, float point processing. THat may be a bit over the top, but I have fun doing it :x

I... have no idea what that means. But I'm sure it's fun if you can make sense of it all!

As I said, I've currently got the i5 760, which has 4 cores and runs at 2.8GHz. The closest dual core price-wise in the same range is the i5 661, which runs at 3.33 GHz. That's a big jump in GHz. Are you saying there will effectively be very little noticeable difference between the two, despite such a large jump? Assume I run it at factory settings, rather than overclocking.

You won't notice anything. You'd see about the same performance.

 

[Samwise137]

I would also suggest Quad-Core. I have a first-gen AMD Phenom-X4 Black Edition processor from a couple years ago and it still kicks arse without overclocking or anything. For longevity's sake, I'd go X4.

 

[TheComedown]

At the moment stick with the i5, games are finally starting to be programed to use the extra cores so you future proofed with the i5 but you'll find you'll need to upgrade soon if you go backwards to a dual core. Also if you send back that processor you'll have to get a new mother board as well.

The 661 uses the same chipset, so it would be fine if I changed it. It's just that I've looked around on the net, and the general consensus seems to be that Dual Core is better for gaming, and the Quad Core is better for multitasking.

But does it use the same socket? I thought all the dual cores where on the 775 sockets at the latest and the i5s and i7s are on the new 1156 or 1366 sockets so I thought that the older processors wouldn't have been shifted onto the new sockets.

But it doesn't really matter as 2.8 is more then enough for most games, and you have the 4 cores which I'm assuming you built the rig for new/ish games many of which are begining to use quad cores.

 

[Zacharine]

At the moment stick with the i5, games are finally starting to be programed to use the extra cores so you future proofed with the i5 but you'll find you'll need to upgrade soon if you go backwards to a dual core. Also if you send back that processor you'll have to get a new mother board as well.

The 661 uses the same chipset, so it would be fine if I changed it. It's just that I've looked around on the net, and the general consensus seems to be that Dual Core is better for gaming, and the Quad Core is better for multitasking.

The dual is better at gaming, at this moment. Because most games can't use more than one core due to their programming.

This'll not be the case two years down the line. So in a few years, once games begin to use three, four, maybe more cores if available, that quad is going to rock any dual core.

Also, the CPU is often not quite as important as other factors (such as memory speed, hard-drive speed and above all else, the GPU). So improving the CPU, which is already quite sufficient (I myself run a 2.8GHz AMD quad (the Phenom II 925)), will not significantly improve gaming at the moment, but a few years down the line the quad will prove its worth in gaming while naturally retaining it's multitasking edge.

 

[D3l7a3ch0]

here's what you can do for $1500.

Dell desktop package (quad core AMD)
2x 22" LED monitors
ATI Radeon HD 5770
BFGTech 550 W power supply

desktop resolution of 5760x1080 that runs all but Battlefield 2 Bad Company at a locked 60fps.

aaaand Starcraft 2 because according to them, it would be an advantage to see so much of the terrain at once, and the sport err, game is regulated by the Olympic Committee in South Korea.

http://i.imagehost.org/0933/budged.jpg

it's not fair.

http://h.imagehost.org/secure/0025/Fear2_Eyefinity_Full001.jpg
http://j.imagehost.org/secure/0966/super1a.jpg

 

[Virgil]

The CPU I picked up is a quad core, the Core i5 760 [http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=48496]. However, in reassessing the alternatives, I noticed that dual cores seem to run at higher GHz, over the 3GHz mark, whereas mine only runs at 2.8GHz. And here's me automatically thinking 4 cores > 2 cores. So is it better to go with the CPU with the higher GHz, or higher number of cores?

Stick with the quad core. The clock frequency on the CPU is far less important, especially for minor changes. If you were really tempted, you could always clock up the quad core to match. As long as you have a decent fan running on the CPU, a 200MHz jump on a modern Intel processor shouldn't be a problem at all.

While the individual cores might run a bit slower than the dual-cores, almost every situation you're going to run into will run better with more cores. At the worst case it will allow multiple applications that aren't multithreaded themselves to be distributed by the OS to different cores.

If anything, you may consider going from one of the Core i5 processors to one of the Core i7 processors, like the i7-860 [http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=41316]. That adds hyperthreading to the quad cores, which will give you 8 virtual cores for a nice ~30% boost to processing power.

 

[oplinger]

I'd suggest quad core.

Most games have several things going on at once, each of these processes can utilise a separate core on the CPU. So say you have a game running 4 processes, your quad-core can dedicate 2.7GHz of processing to each thread. Your dual core by comparison has to stack them two to a core, so they get ~1.5GHz per process.

Also consider things like the Operating System, Anti virus, media player in the background etc. Will all be taking up processor time as well.

The only real benefit to a higher clock speed on the CPU is also kind of negated by the fact that your graphics card will be doing the hefty graphics calculations anyway, which tends to be the big part of games.

- - -

Please note that the above is MASSIVELY simplified. Also the difference isn't that big, games these days will tend to run fine on either.

I think you may have oversimplified.

Games do multiple things at once, they're called threads most games wont be running more than 2, but for the sake of argument lets say 4. On a dual core processor (say it's also 2.7 GHz) it still dedicates 2.7 GHz to that thread. It just can't process all the threads at once. You cant just divide them and say that's that it's like. Not to mention if a game runs multi-threaded, it also depends how it's threaded.

In some games it's threaded with say the graphics in one thread, physics in another thread, sound in a separate thread. The sound is just going to blow right on through the processor as its the lightest of the three, so it won't impact performance as much.

But you're right, The graphics card does handle most of the hefty stuff. Also I'm leaving out Hyper-threading because that'd really confuse the poor guy

 

[TheComedown]

The CPU I picked up is a quad core, the Core i5 760 [http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=48496]. However, in reassessing the alternatives, I noticed that dual cores seem to run at higher GHz, over the 3GHz mark, whereas mine only runs at 2.8GHz. And here's me automatically thinking 4 cores > 2 cores. So is it better to go with the CPU with the higher GHz, or higher number of cores?

Stick with the quad core. The clock frequency on the CPU is far less important, especially for minor changes. If you were really tempted, you could always clock up the quad core to match. As long as you have a decent fan running on the CPU, a 200MHz jump on a modern Intel processor shouldn't be a problem at all.

While the individual cores might run a bit slower than the dual-cores, almost every situation you're going to run into will run better with more cores. At the worst case it will allow multiple applications that aren't multithreaded themselves to be distributed by the OS to different cores.

If anything, you may consider going from one of the Core i5 processors to one of the Core i7 processors, like the i7-860 [http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=41316]. That adds hyperthreading to the quad cores, which will give you 8 virtual cores for a nice ~30% boost to processing power.

This is excellent advice, and I am getting that CPU in a week or two, cant wait, just gotta wait a little bit longer for a bit more cash to get a decent PSU to go with it.

 

[TheComedown]

here's what you can do for $1500.

Dell desktop package (quad core AMD)
2x 22" LED monitors
ATI Radeon HD 5770
BFGTech 550 W power supply

desktop resolution of 5760x1080 that runs all but Battlefield 2 Bad Company at a locked 60fps.

aaaand Starcraft 2 because according to them, it would be an advantage to see so much of the terrain at once, and the sport err, game is regulated by the Olympic Committee in South Korea.

http://i.imagehost.org/0933/budged.jpg

it's not fair.

http://h.imagehost.org/secure/0025/Fear2_Eyefinity_Full001.jpg

What game is that in the second screen, and what relevance does this have to OP?

 

[D3l7a3ch0]

Fear 2 and RE: quad core

 

[Danzaivar]

I'd suggest quad core.

Most games have several things going on at once, each of these processes can utilise a separate core on the CPU. So say you have a game running 4 processes, your quad-core can dedicate 2.7GHz of processing to each thread. Your dual core by comparison has to stack them two to a core, so they get ~1.5GHz per process.

Also consider things like the Operating System, Anti virus, media player in the background etc. Will all be taking up processor time as well.

The only real benefit to a higher clock speed on the CPU is also kind of negated by the fact that your graphics card will be doing the hefty graphics calculations anyway, which tends to be the big part of games.

- - -

Please note that the above is MASSIVELY simplified. Also the difference isn't that big, games these days will tend to run fine on either.

I think you may have oversimplified.

Games do multiple things at once, they're called threads most games wont be running more than 2, but for the sake of argument lets say 4. On a dual core processor (say it's also 2.7 GHz) it still dedicates 2.7 GHz to that thread. It just can't process all the threads at once. You cant just divide them and say that's that it's like. Not to mention if a game runs multi-threaded, it also depends how it's threaded.

In some games it's threaded with say the graphics in one thread, physics in another thread, sound in a separate thread. The sound is just going to blow right on through the processor as its the lightest of the three, so it won't impact performance as much.

But you're right, The graphics card does handle most of the hefty stuff. Also I'm leaving out Hyper-threading because that'd really confuse the poor guy

Well yeah the 1.5GHz to each thread on the core is technically wrong, but in practice it's more like "Run process A at 2.7GHz for 500 cycles, swap, run B for 300 cycles, swap". At the speed we comprehend what comes out is they're both running at once and taking up "some" of the 2.7GHz each. If anything it's actually diminished due to the time taken to swap what threads being sorted.

Not that it matters these days. Processors run crazy fast as is.