Quad Core vs. Dual Core

[ffxfriek]

fine ill search it and get back to you soon

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Quad core all the way. I put a 2.66 Ghz quad core in my dad's computer and it screams. It was the first system I ever OC'd so I kept it to a low 3.2 Ghz and have room (thermally) to go at least to 3.8 Ghz.

 

[ReepNeep]

A quad-core processor will be more future-proof as games start to take advantage of multiple processors rather than raw clock speed, but as of now a fast dual-core will be a better option than a slower quad-core considering the price high-end quads have on them. Both overclock like crazy, even on stock cooling, so a Q6600 can perform as well as a standard-clocked E8400, but the E8400 can reach speeds of 3.4 to 3.6 GHz fairly easily as well.

Unless your computer is really trash, I'd wait a bit for the Core i7 processors. With a reported 25-50% jump clock-for-clock over the Core 2 series, it'll be worth it.

The new features in Nehalem are intended for the server market. The integrated memory controller won't make a bit of difference in games because of the large caches Intel chips already have. The Hypertransport clone that Intel is putting into them (QPI was it?) will only really matter under the huge loads of server database software, with huge raid arrays and multiple CPU sockets.

For typical consumer apps (Games, Office, Photoshop, etc) I7 won't offer much of a (if any) clock for clock improvement over Core 2.

As to the dual vs. quad argument, it's only now that games are being written with two cores in mind. How old are dual-core chips? 2005? Are you telling me that you think enough systems will have quad-cores in three years to be worth the deveoper's time(money) when even after three and a half years of duals on the market, a big chunk of the user base is still running single core P4s? In three years, a dual-core will finally be the expected norm. Quads will still be a premium product simply because the vast majority of users have no need for one.

Duals are cheaper, and in the vast majority of software the Joe Consumer will run, significantly faster to boot. If you have an app that benefits heavily from a quad right now, go ahead and get one. Just realize that in the 3+ years it will take for quads to become common enough for most programs to support them that q6600 will be as old and busted as my A64 X2 3800+ (OC'd to 2.4 with stock voltage) is now.

 

[shadow skill]

I don't know, dual core processors are already useful because of changes in OS requirements. I ran my last CPU into the ground and only just upgraded because the IDE controller was giving me really strange errors while I was trying to fix a busted filesystem on one of my drives. I went for the quad core processor and couldn't be happier. The only thing that I feel sucks about my machine now is the GPU but that is another topic. I would say that it is better to go for the Quad core now so that you can transistion with ease into a superior quad core processor. The programs you are using should have to catch up with your hardware, you should not be playing catch up with the software you are using.

I can tell you this, I am able to open full volume manga zip/rar files in about one second with my favorite manga reader. It used to take a billion years to do this while I was doing other stuff at the same time. Though this improvement may have more to do with my ram upgrade rather than my Quad core.