Dual Core or Quad Core?

[fanklok]

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.

Sure someone already answered this but who cares. You're 2.8 quad core is like having a 11.2 GHz processor and that 3.3 dual core is like a 6.6 (if I have been told correctly) if I'm wrong on this someone correct me.

 

[Abedeus]

Buy quads if you are buying a new PC or motherboard. I would've bought a quad, but very few games actually use those extra cores to the fullest.

 

[migo]

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.

Sure someone already answered this but who cares. You're 2.8 quad core is like having a 11.2 GHz processor and that 3.3 dual core is like a 6.6 (if I have been told correctly) if I'm wrong on this someone correct me.

Round down and subtract 1 - it's more like a dual 3.3 is like 5GHz and the quad 2.8 is like a 10GHz. That also depends on the program, some take poor advantage of the extra cores, and sometimes hyperthreading helps.

 

[cold killer pov]

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exactly searchbar approved, but it's been a while since the last topic, so the information may have become a little outdated now.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.

Going just off what you said, budget seems to be a slight issue. How much is that CPU, because what some people dont seem to realise is, getting older tech does the same job, and will run new games perfectly, is that the only thing you have bought? because obviously if you are 100% sure your running an Intel setup then go for it, but if you change your setup to AMD then you could always get an "AMD Athlon II 2.9Ghz Quad Core" for aboooouuutt... £80.

Obviously its all your choice, but remember if budget is an issue you dont always need the latest stuff, older stuff will do the same job, just as good and at a much lower cost.


EDIT: just saw the link, yeah that $205, not sure what that is in £££'s but the AMD is still a lot cheaper. maybe like... $140? im really not sure tho. heres a link to the processor i was thinking of for my gaming rig anyway: http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-263-AM&groupid=701&catid=6&subcat=803 Just £82

 

[D3l7a3ch0]

OP your parts are no doubt better than the ones I've got. my rig is the minimum to support our ATI 5770 GPU.

OP and my GPUs have two HDMI, two DVI and one displayport (a la mac). there's a special active displayport adapter the card needs to utilize the displayport along with EITHER the two HDMI ports OR two DVI ports to make three monitors at the same time.

it is done with ATI's "Eyefinity" software, and the way displayport uses resources in the GPU.

I am 100% behind OP's choice of quad core CPU and ATI 5770 GPU.

again, sorry to skirt the off-topic zone. I realize I got away with one.

 

[aesondaandryk]

If your someone who looks for the best upgrading options, you may want to wait a bit on getting a new rig.

 

[octafish]

Me, I'm holding out for Bulldozer and Sandybridge before I move from DDR2 and 775, but I recently picked up a second hand QX9650 in a trade, so I'm set for a while. If you are worried about the speed of the i5 760 you can overclock those to 3.6ghz on air easily. Get a decent heat sink and good ones can do 4Ghz 24/7. Some games are starting to use the quads, so I think it is worth having.

 

[SimuLord]

I've got a 2006-issue Core 2 Duo E6400 clocked at 2.4GHz. But clock speed's not even half the story. Throughput rises as number of cores tackling a task increases.

Mind you, my dual-core does everything I need it to and then some. I'll go quad-core with my next machine but for now I've got plenty.