Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Dual-core vs. Quad-core

Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 23, 2013 2:46:09 PM

Is it okay to have a dual core processor over quad core to save money in a gaming computer build?

More about : dual core quad core

a b à CPUs
May 23, 2013 2:55:33 PM

Yes......

What would be better... Is to give the community your plans on purchasing a gaming computer. Be it building yourself, Purchasing from a company etc. Let us know how much your willing to budget and we can help u make the best decision.

Also include the types of games your going to play, and resolution of your monitor.
m
0
l
a c 210 à CPUs
May 23, 2013 3:00:33 PM

If it is at all feasible...get a quad core. If you plan to do any of the following, ever...get a quad core. Things are constantly becoming more and more threaded as time goes by...so if these are in your plans, get a quad core or more:

1) Gaming
2) Rendering
3) Streaming
4) Multitasking
5) Video Encoding
6) Digital Editing
7) HD Movies

If you plan to only use it for the following, a dual core is suitable:

1) Email
2) web surfing (but not video streaming)
3) Typing documents/MS office
4) Solitaire...?
m
3
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
May 23, 2013 3:11:43 PM

Quad-core is much better for most uses, I would recommend an FX CPU over an i3 nowadays.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 23, 2013 3:45:31 PM

The dual cores will become obsolete for gaming/heavy computing in the very near future. Look at Crysis 3 as an example (bottom graph) - http://www.techspot.com/review/642-crysis-3-performance...

The I3 3220 isn't much faster than an old Athlon ll X4 640.

For I3 money, the FX6300/6350 is king.

As for dual vs quad, quad or more cores are the future.
m
0
l
a c 210 à CPUs
May 23, 2013 4:55:19 PM



LOL...that's not "beating" that's a wash...stop posting a 1-2 FPS margin and calling it "beating"...you're not winning until you escape margin for error man.

EDIT: Additionally, which part of Crysis 3 did they test? Some parts are far less thread heavy than other parts.
m
0
l
May 23, 2013 5:10:01 PM

8350rocks said:


LOL...that's not "beating" that's a wash...stop posting a 1-2 FPS margin and calling it "beating"...you're not winning until you escape margin for error man.

EDIT: Additionally, which part of Crysis 3 did they test? Some parts are far less thread heavy than other parts.


The bench sequence is pretty much a worst case scenario for Crysis 3, absolutely brutal on the CPU. And it seems to me i3 beat PH II X4 by 10 FPS, or roughly 30%.

edit: Same benchmark sequence... here is i3 vs stock/OC'ed Q9550:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-wolfdale...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 23, 2013 7:13:17 PM



Toms tests Crysis 3 in the"Welcome to the Jungle" level. Techspot tested on "Post Human". So the tests are not 100% comparable. However, I will say from personal experience, Crysis 3 on an Ivy Bridge I3 3220 is not anywhere near as smooth as on a 965 Phenom, FX6300, FX8350 or I5 2500K. In areas where there isn't as much CPU load, they all seem to produce similar framerates with the I3 possibly being faster than the AMD Phenom CPUs. Which is what Toms shows. They also show that the 965 has a (super-huge-ginormous-massive 2 FPS) higher minimum frame rate than the I3. The testing from Techspot however, while not as complete as Toms, shows a huge difference between the IB I3 3220, Phenom ll X6, X4 and even the much despised FX4170 showing a massive 20 FPS advantage over the IB I3.

I haven't tested it yet with fraps or even a framerate counter but from my experience with a 7870XT @ 1250 Mhz core / 1600 Mhz memory the 965, FX6300 and 8350, all produced a much smoother (better) experience than the IB I3 3220 in Crysis 3.

Also, looking around the web for Crysis 3 CPU scaling, Toms is the only site that I have seen (didn't look that hard honestly) that lists the SB/IB I3 being faster than the Phenom 965.

This thread from overclock.net shows two sites, gamegpu.ru and pcgameshardware.de with not exact but similar results to what the Techspot shows. Apparently, Crysis 3 doesn't utilize hyper-threading very well, while it utilized the AMD architecture quite well.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1362591/gamegpu-crysis-3-fin...

Enough about Crysis 3.

With the PS4 and XBOX One both having 8 core X86 based CPU's, I think that future games being ported over to the PC will be heavily threaded for quad core or more CPUs.
m
0
l
May 23, 2013 7:28:03 PM

ish416 said:


Toms tests Crysis 3 in the"Welcome to the Jungle" level. Techspot tested on "Post Human". So the tests are not 100% comparable. However, I will say from personal experience, Crysis 3 on an Ivy Bridge I3 3220 is not anywhere near as smooth as on a 965 Phenom, FX6300, FX8350 or I5 2500K. In areas where there isn't as much CPU load, they all seem to produce similar framerates with the I3 possibly being faster than the AMD Phenom CPUs. Which is what Toms shows. They also show that the 965 has a (super-huge-ginormous-massive 2 FPS) higher minimum frame rate than the I3. The testing from Techspot however, while not as complete as Toms, shows a huge difference between the IB I3 3220, Phenom ll X6, X4 and even the much despised FX4170 showing a massive 20 FPS advantage over the IB I3.

I haven't tested it yet with fraps or even a framerate counter but from my experience with a 7870XT @ 1250 Mhz core / 1600 Mhz memory the 965, FX6300 and 8350, all produced a much smoother (better) experience than the IB I3 3220 in Crysis 3.

Also, looking around the web for Crysis 3 CPU scaling, Toms is the only site that I have seen (didn't look that hard honestly) that lists the SB/IB I3 being faster than the Phenom 965.

This thread from overclock.net shows two sites, gamegpu.ru and pcgameshardware.de with not exact but similar results to what the Techspot shows. Apparently, Crysis 3 doesn't utilize hyper-threading very well, while it utilized the AMD architecture quite well.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1362591/gamegpu-crysis-3-fin...

Enough about Crysis 3.

With the PS4 and XBOX One both having 8 core X86 based CPU's, I think that future games being ported over to the PC will be heavily threaded for quad core or more CPUs.


Crysis 3 doesn't use Hyper threading effectively? I disagree with that statement as it's far from the case based on our time within the game. i3-3220 almost doubles the frame rates of G2020. And a more rare scenario, i7 .. easily bests.. Core i5.

edit: Interesting other benchmarks show far less gains. Ah, I see they are using a dual-GPU solution, which is another difference.
m
0
l
May 24, 2013 5:24:59 AM

ummm.... ok... COOL!! So for a gaming pc more cores the better, but would an i5-3350P quad core last me a while with playing really any current games? I don't plan on playing Crysis 3, so nothing too outrageous. I'm just trying to find the cheapest current-gen quad core I can get worth having for gaming.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 24, 2013 5:43:29 AM

cj9jones said:
ummm.... ok... COOL!! So for a gaming pc more cores the better, but would an i5-3350P quad core last me a while with playing really any current games? I don't plan on playing Crysis 3, so nothing too outrageous. I'm just trying to find the cheapest current-gen quad core I can get worth having for gaming.


it's a very good gaming CPU and is the top tom's gaming CPU for $180 or under
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...


m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 24, 2013 5:47:05 AM

8350rocks said:


If you plan to only use it for the following, a dual core is suitable:

1) Email
2) web surfing (but not video streaming)
3) Typing documents/MS office
4) Solitaire...?


if you want people to take you seriously then post facts rather then fan boy opinions since you already stated "that's not "beating" that's a wash...stop posting a 1-2 FPS margin and calling it "beating" about the FX-4 & i3 and then state the above

m
0
l
May 24, 2013 5:48:03 AM

dirtyferret said:
cj9jones said:
ummm.... ok... COOL!! So for a gaming pc more cores the better, but would an i5-3350P quad core last me a while with playing really any current games? I don't plan on playing Crysis 3, so nothing too outrageous. I'm just trying to find the cheapest current-gen quad core I can get worth having for gaming.


it's a very good gaming CPU and is the top tom's gaming CPU for $180 or under
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...




Wow! Thank You!! I didn't even think to look it up on Tom's! Thanks everyone! I've got my answer so thanks a lot! Although, There was no complete answer by one person, so I'll just choose the one I like the best.
m
0
l
May 24, 2013 6:06:11 AM

cj9jones said:
dirtyferret said:
cj9jones said:
ummm.... ok... COOL!! So for a gaming pc more cores the better, but would an i5-3350P quad core last me a while with playing really any current games? I don't plan on playing Crysis 3, so nothing too outrageous. I'm just trying to find the cheapest current-gen quad core I can get worth having for gaming.


it's a very good gaming CPU and is the top tom's gaming CPU for $180 or under
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...




Wow! Thank You!! I didn't even think to look it up on Tom's! Thanks everyone! I've got my answer so thanks a lot! Although, There was no complete answer by one person, so I'll just choose the one I like the best.


+1 - The i5-3350P is a great choice for gaming; enjoy it! The boxed cooler is pretty quiet and sufficient, so that saves you money too.

True, folks willing to overclock can also pull big performance from cheaper parts like AMD's Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition, or the FX-6300. Overclocking isn't for everyone though, and it has some associated costs and drawbacks also.



m
0
l
a c 210 à CPUs
May 24, 2013 7:50:56 AM

dirtyferret said:
8350rocks said:


If you plan to only use it for the following, a dual core is suitable:

1) Email
2) web surfing (but not video streaming)
3) Typing documents/MS office
4) Solitaire...?


if you want people to take you seriously then post facts rather then fan boy opinions since you already stated "that's not "beating" that's a wash...stop posting a 1-2 FPS margin and calling it "beating" about the FX-4 & i3 and then state the above



In Crysis 3 every review I have seen shows 1-2 FPS...I haven't looked at Tom's but I assumed (as was pointed out earlier) that the results were similar. Even then, the i3 usually is quite a bit behind, especially in the thread heavy portions of the game.

You need raw horsepower to run Crysis 3, which the i3 series is somewhat short on...

I should have expected he would find the one where an i3 was even close...because he's good at finding the odd man out in terms of benchmarks that show better intel performance.
m
0
l
a c 210 à CPUs
May 24, 2013 9:32:45 AM

hafijur said:
Well intel made dual cores still a viable gaming solution. i3 and anything higher then a gtx650 or lets say 3500 3dmark11+ gpu and the i3 will start to lose fps mainly unless game is really gpu intensive.

Intel dual core competes against amd fx4000 series and the old phenom 2x4 and core 2 quads. Not bad as the i3 takes around 20-25w.


Actually, it really only competes in situations where the workload is skewed to favor it. The older quads still blow the doors off the i3 series when the workload is more than 1-2 threads.

Power consumption, for most of the world, has very little importance. I pay $0.11 per kw/hr. In my mind, power consumption is the absolute last thing I consider. Unless it horrendously out of line, it doesn't matter. There are many others in places around the world where power consumption is no concern because energy is cheap.

If you are in a power starved country, I could understand your concern. However, considering even places that were 3rd world countries a decade ago now have new Nuclear Fission power plants, energy is cheaper and cleaner than it has ever been in the past (relative to inflation). So while some may consider that an "interesting" metric to judge by...it's not relevant for many.
m
0
l
a c 210 à CPUs
May 24, 2013 11:19:51 AM

90w = 0.090 kw

0.090 x $0.11 = $0.0099 per hour.

$0.0099 x 6 = $0.0594 per day

$0.0594 x 365 = $21.681 per year/12 = $1.80675 per month

That's using a maximum wattage gap as well by assuming full load for 6 hours...normal usage will normally not even touch that unless you render heavily, etc.

For $1.81 per month worst case scenario, I will take the FX8350 over an i3...all day, all night, all week, all month, all year, all decade.

At $1.81 per month it would take 77.48 months to spend the difference in cost between the i7-3770k and the FX8350 in terms of price in electricity per month...comparing i3 energy consumption. Want to bet if we compare i7 consumption the results become more skewed as to how irrelevant power consumption really is?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 24, 2013 12:40:46 PM

8350rocks said:
dirtyferret said:
8350rocks said:


If you plan to only use it for the following, a dual core is suitable:

1) Email
2) web surfing (but not video streaming)
3) Typing documents/MS office
4) Solitaire...?


if you want people to take you seriously then post facts rather then fan boy opinions since you already stated "that's not "beating" that's a wash...stop posting a 1-2 FPS margin and calling it "beating" about the FX-4 & i3 and then state the above



In Crysis 3 every review I have seen shows 1-2 FPS...I haven't looked at Tom's but I assumed (as was pointed out earlier) that the results were similar. Even then, the i3 usually is quite a bit behind, especially in the thread heavy portions of the game.

You need raw horsepower to run Crysis 3, which the i3 series is somewhat short on...

I should have expected he would find the one where an i3 was even close...because he's good at finding the odd man out in terms of benchmarks that show better intel performance.


my point being is; if you talk about the i3 & FX-4 as being in the same ballpark in performance (1-2 FPS) as gaming CPUs in one breath, then you look silly stating the i3 is only good for solitaire and is not capable enough to even stream video. it makes you look like you either don't know anything about PC hardware or are talking in extreme hyperbole (i know its the latter but the OP may not)

m
0
l
a c 210 à CPUs
May 24, 2013 2:00:52 PM

dirtyferret said:
8350rocks said:
dirtyferret said:
8350rocks said:


If you plan to only use it for the following, a dual core is suitable:

1) Email
2) web surfing (but not video streaming)
3) Typing documents/MS office
4) Solitaire...?


if you want people to take you seriously then post facts rather then fan boy opinions since you already stated "that's not "beating" that's a wash...stop posting a 1-2 FPS margin and calling it "beating" about the FX-4 & i3 and then state the above



In Crysis 3 every review I have seen shows 1-2 FPS...I haven't looked at Tom's but I assumed (as was pointed out earlier) that the results were similar. Even then, the i3 usually is quite a bit behind, especially in the thread heavy portions of the game.

You need raw horsepower to run Crysis 3, which the i3 series is somewhat short on...

I should have expected he would find the one where an i3 was even close...because he's good at finding the odd man out in terms of benchmarks that show better intel performance.


my point being is; if you talk about the i3 & FX-4 as being in the same ballpark in performance (1-2 FPS) as gaming CPUs in one breath, then you look silly stating the i3 is only good for solitaire and is not capable enough to even stream video. it makes you look like you either don't know anything about PC hardware or are talking in extreme hyperbole (i know its the latter but the OP may not)



Well, the solitaire bit was supposed to be good for a light chuckle...though it seems few took it that way.

Additionally, in all fairness...I really don't consider the FX4 series to be exceptional gaming CPUs either. I think if you're going to spend $110 on the FX4, why not spend $120 on the FX6? That makes a great deal more sense...especially in the sense of looking forward.

If you're maxing out your budget, it is what it is...but for i3 money, you can buy a FX6, and that is a legit gaming CPU. The FX4 is not something I readily recommend to many people unless they're that strapped for cash on their budget. Then that atleast gets them into a current gen MB (AM3+/970 series+) and they can potentially upgrade to a better CPU later for not a lot of money...even if they wait for steamroller.

However, I do see your point, I should not assume that everyone understands the dynamics of the comment made.
m
0
l
a c 210 à CPUs
May 24, 2013 3:52:40 PM

hafijur said:
8350rocks said:
90w = 0.090 kw

0.090 x $0.11 = $0.0099 per hour.

$0.0099 x 6 = $0.0594 per day

$0.0594 x 365 = $21.681 per year/12 = $1.80675 per month

That's using a maximum wattage gap as well by assuming full load for 6 hours...normal usage will normally not even touch that unless you render heavily, etc.

For $1.81 per month worst case scenario, I will take the FX8350 over an i3...all day, all night, all week, all month, all year, all decade.

At $1.81 per month it would take 77.48 months to spend the difference in cost between the i7-3770k and the FX8350 in terms of price in electricity per month...comparing i3 energy consumption. Want to bet if we compare i7 consumption the results become more skewed as to how irrelevant power consumption really is?


3770k takes 96w less then an fx8350. So if you do folding at home when not using the pc the price of an intel 3770k maybe great in the long run. I hope for amds sake that steamroller delivers what bulldozer promised. I reckon amd can improve 50% easily if they get there architecture right. Amd temash and kabini on mobile market has gone the right way improved cpu performance at low power. Will the desktop market follow suit.
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/156552-amds-last-a...
http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processo...


Actually i7-3770k TDP is 84W and FX8350 is 125W...which is a difference of 41W.

So let's back into our numbers before assuming average consumption.

41w = 0.041 kw
0.041 X $0.11 = $0.00451 per hour
$0.00451 x 6 hours = $0.02706 per day
$0.02706 x 365 = $9.8769 per year/12 = $0.823075 per month

Considering the price difference between the 2, I can run the FX8350 for 170.094 months before I have used as much electricity as what the cost difference between the i7-3770k and FX 8350 are initially. Which means basically that it would take 14+ years at 6 hours full load per day, every day to burn that much electricity...

So, no the cost doesn't look that good.

Additionally...want to talk about an i5-3570k? It would take 72.897 months to recoup the cost difference between those 2 (6 years)...so again...it doesn't look that good either considering the performance.

EDIT: But I do agree...Kabini and Temash are far better for power consumption if that's important to you.
m
0
l
a c 210 à CPUs
May 24, 2013 4:33:36 PM

hafijur said:
using your formula 3770k takes 96w less so you save $23.1264 a year. Lets say you keep it for 4 years, thats $92.5056 saving if you do hardcore stuff using cpu daily 6 hours like if you work as a film editor etc or gamemaker it all adds up.
96w = 0.096 kw
0.096 X $0.11 = $0.01056 per hour
$0.01056 x 6 hours = $0.06336 per day
$0.06336 x 365 = $23.1264 per year/12 = $1.9272 per month


The difference isn't 96W

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-benchmar...

It's actually 46W less than the FX8150 which the FX8350 is about 15% more efficient meaning the power consumption should fall to 159W. Which actually makes the difference less than 20W...I was being generous though by using TDP.

At less than 20W it would take about 28.5 years to make up the difference...further exascerbating my point.
m
0
l
May 25, 2013 9:13:11 AM

pauldh said:
cj9jones said:
dirtyferret said:
cj9jones said:
ummm.... ok... COOL!! So for a gaming pc more cores the better, but would an i5-3350P quad core last me a while with playing really any current games? I don't plan on playing Crysis 3, so nothing too outrageous. I'm just trying to find the cheapest current-gen quad core I can get worth having for gaming.


it's a very good gaming CPU and is the top tom's gaming CPU for $180 or under
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...




Wow! Thank You!! I didn't even think to look it up on Tom's! Thanks everyone! I've got my answer so thanks a lot! Although, There was no complete answer by one person, so I'll just choose the one I like the best.


+1 - The i5-3350P is a great choice for gaming; enjoy it! The boxed cooler is pretty quiet and sufficient, so that saves you money too.

True, folks willing to overclock can also pull big performance from cheaper parts like AMD's Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition, or the FX-6300. Overclocking isn't for everyone though, and it has some associated costs and drawbacks also.





Ok cool thanks!
m
0
l
May 25, 2013 9:15:50 AM

Hahahahahaha
m
0
l
May 25, 2013 9:26:53 AM

McDuncun said:
Hahahahahaha


Don't tell me you read the whole thing haha. I didn't even read the whole thing and It was my question!! =)
m
0
l
May 25, 2013 1:19:00 PM

8350rocks said:
hafijur said:
using your formula 3770k takes 96w less so you save $23.1264 a year. Lets say you keep it for 4 years, thats $92.5056 saving if you do hardcore stuff using cpu daily 6 hours like if you work as a film editor etc or gamemaker it all adds up.
96w = 0.096 kw
0.096 X $0.11 = $0.01056 per hour
$0.01056 x 6 hours = $0.06336 per day
$0.06336 x 365 = $23.1264 per year/12 = $1.9272 per month


The difference isn't 96W

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-benchmar...

It's actually 46W less than the FX8150 which the FX8350 is about 15% more efficient meaning the power consumption should fall to 159W. Which actually makes the difference less than 20W...I was being generous though by using TDP.

At less than 20W it would take about 28.5 years to make up the difference...further exascerbating my point.


You are mixing things up a bit. Efficiency isn't power consumption, it also factors in the performance increase for Vishera.

It's far better to just look at the FX-8350 review anyway, which compares all 3 processors. From the wall FX-8350 consumed 52.3 Watts more on average than i7-3770K, and 11 Watts less than FX-8150.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-rev...

BUT again that is not efficiency. Factor the time it took to complete all tests, and FX-8350 was a 13% improvement, but it was absolutely crushed by the i7-3770K, consuming way more power and loaded longer to complete the same tasks. edit: It amounts to use of 59.6% more Watt Hours than Core-i7 while completing the same task.
m
0
l
a c 210 à CPUs
May 26, 2013 9:11:51 AM

hafijur said:
http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processo...

Well I have to say this new amd fx series both bulldozer and piledriver failed. Steamroller has to deliver. I like efficient devices. Im glad the new ps4 has the new graphics cards on 28nm and the new amd architecture for the cpu and with unified memoryy games and tasks will run very well. AMD are gonna rake it in with the consoles.


How on earth can you conclude they "failed"? Bulldozer was less successful but Piledriver seems to be doing reasonably well.

m
0
l
a c 210 à CPUs
May 26, 2013 9:14:22 AM

pauldh said:
8350rocks said:
hafijur said:
using your formula 3770k takes 96w less so you save $23.1264 a year. Lets say you keep it for 4 years, thats $92.5056 saving if you do hardcore stuff using cpu daily 6 hours like if you work as a film editor etc or gamemaker it all adds up.
96w = 0.096 kw
0.096 X $0.11 = $0.01056 per hour
$0.01056 x 6 hours = $0.06336 per day
$0.06336 x 365 = $23.1264 per year/12 = $1.9272 per month


The difference isn't 96W

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-benchmar...

It's actually 46W less than the FX8150 which the FX8350 is about 15% more efficient meaning the power consumption should fall to 159W. Which actually makes the difference less than 20W...I was being generous though by using TDP.

At less than 20W it would take about 28.5 years to make up the difference...further exascerbating my point.


You are mixing things up a bit. Efficiency isn't power consumption, it also factors in the performance increase for Vishera.

It's far better to just look at the FX-8350 review anyway, which compares all 3 processors. From the wall FX-8350 consumed 52.3 Watts more on average than i7-3770K, and 11 Watts less than FX-8150.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-rev...

BUT again that is not efficiency. Factor the time it took to complete all tests, and FX-8350 was a 13% improvement, but it was absolutely crushed by the i7-3770K, consuming way more power and loaded longer to complete the same tasks. edit: It amounts to use of 59.6% more Watt Hours than Core-i7 while completing the same task.


The consumption chart from Tom's shows a difference of 46W between i7-3770k and FX8150. Even if you make it only 11W less by your numbers that's 35W.

At 35W it still takes 15 years under the constraints of the comparison in question to recoup the initial cost difference in power consumption. That's if you run your PC at max load for 6 hours per day, everyday, all year.

For the difference in cost, I will take the slight difference in power consumption.

m
0
l
!