Are quad core, duo core really run faster than single core CPU? I want to know your field experience.

Only if whatever game or program you use takes advantage of multi-threading. For example, DivX 5.1 is not a multi-thread video codec so when I convert a DVD to a DivX file, it can process about 70 FPS. When I use DivX 6.5 which is a multi-threaded video codec, I get around 105 FPS.
 
Games are a different matter, most games are not optimized for dual core processor. Oblivion gets about a 10% boost in performance when a dual core CPU is used instead of single core CPU and both processors are the same speed. Doom 3 / Quake 4 seems to get a 25% - 35% boost simply by switching to dual core (at the same clockspeed).
 
But the gaming landscape has started to change, Alan Wake (a thriller type game) will require at least a dual core processor. As more programmers become familiar at optimizing program code to take advantage of multi-threading, then they should see a significant boost in performance, not just a mere 10% or less.
 
I'm not a programmer, but I would guess that a quad core will be overkill for most games. I think the more cores there are, the more complicated it will become to for the programmer to take advantage of all the cores. It can be done, but it will just take time to optimize.

i dont know about quad, but i had a 2.4ghz venice athlon single core and it was quick compared to my old 3000+ sempron. i decided to upgrade to an x2 3800. i heard everyone when they said dont expect a big difference unless your using a program that can use the second core or do alot of multi tasking. they were right. it actually felt slower, but i could open all the programs i wanted and it did not go any slower, encoding dvds went alot faster. i have come to believe single threaded apps speed depends on the core speed and encoding/multi tasking is where you feel the other cores. don't get a slow dual core unless you plan to oc [ i feel that more than the second core], that is just my experience. i just got an x2 5600 [cocklocked fx62] and hope to install it tomorrow so i may be able to tell you if my feeling is correct.

When running single threaded games/programs... would it be a benefical to assign all background tasks to one core and the game to the other...
 
What type of gain would that be (if any) and is it even possible?  
 
I think I saw somewhere here that games like FEAR had 0% benefit to a dual core.  I wonder it manual assignment would help?

You get a HUGE performance increase in two areas: Multi-Tasking, and multi-thread ready programs/games. Other areas only use one core.
 
As far as I know you cannot assign programs to a core.
 
The next rig I plan on building in about 6 months to a year I want 8 cores (yes, 8). I am either running 2 Quad-Core CPUs or 4 Dual-Core CPUs. i am not sure which one yet, probably 2 Quad-Cores as that will be more cost efficient.

Are there motherboards with 4 CPU sockets? I mean, something actually affordable?  
 
I think different flavors of Windows support different numbers of cores, for example Windows 2000 won't recognize all 4 cores in a quad, but XP will. Don't know about 8 cores...  8O  8O

 
I am not sure, but I think Windows Vista supports up to 16 cores.
 
Anyway here are some multi-CPU mobos:
 
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6813151018
 
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6813151041
[url]
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6813128036[/url]
 
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6813151008

 
You can assign programs to a core in task manager in xp home / xp pro. xp home supports multi core but not multi socket (so one dual/quad core chip not two single/dual/quad core chips) and xp pro supports multi core and multi-socket.
 
Not sure 'bout Vista though

You can set programs to a single core, and it can be beneficial if you have a few background apps running.  Simply bring up task manager, right click the process, and set program affinity to one of the cores.  If you don't do this, each core will take half of the processes.  In my experiances though, I have not found setting affinity (for a game, for example) to speed it up.  But, my computer is a gaming only system and isn't even connected to the internet, so I hardly have any background apps running.

I've got a Compro DTV card which if I use while doing anything cpu intensive skips video and sound. By setting the tv program to use one core and whatever else to use the other, makes things smoooooth :-)

why do dual core CPU run at slower clock speed than my single core? My CPU is 3.2GHz while dual core top cpu run at 2.66 GHZ.
 
How is it possible to make the dual core run faster?

Nice grammer.  [/forum a$$hole]
-cm

 
Each CPU runs off of a different core structure. Theres many cores out there, for exampel in my one computer i have a amd athlon 64 4000+ that runs off of a 2.9Ghz ClawHammer core, and I have a AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ that runs off of a 2.7Ghz Windsor Core

 
I think there are some heat issues when putting two cores on one die. Its important to remember mhz isn't the most important factor when looking at performance. the cpu charts on this site are usefull for getting a real world idea of cpu performance.
 
In my experience, going from a3500 to dual core a4800, there was a big difference, everything is much smoother. But i multitask a lot, watching tv/playing games while video encoding or rendering, which was tricky on a single core machine.
 
You'de be silly these days to buy a single core cpu, as the emphasis on multi-threading apps (meaning they take advantage of multiple cpu's) is getting stronger and stronger. You should go multi core If you are buying a system to last imo.

 
You're comparing 2 completely different processor lines...a single core Core 2 at 3.2ghz would still completely destroy a single core p4 at 3.2

Hmmm I'm not sure man...
 
I have a quadcore that runs 3.6GHz Daily at -48C and 4.23GHz max at 1.55v.
 
Quad Cores can run much faster, the problem is yields would be considerably lower therefore it is not finiancially viable for Intel or AMD to sell highly clock Dual or Quad Core parts.
 
This is becoming less of a problem as both companies rmap up 65nm and in Intel's case 45nm production.

 
I plan to get a quad penryn later, but have been watching the 6600 quad drop in price alot lately and still going down.
 
I did a google of performance reviews for that chip and most reviews I saw were dissappointing in that the chip appears slower than a comparable duo of the same speed?  I figured they would be the same or close.
 
Are they slower (especially in games), or are those reviews bogus?

Nice spelling. [/irony]

 
Nice spelling. [/irony]
 
I've noticed a trend on pretty much all message boards I go to, whenever someone picks on someone's grammar, they always misspell it "grammer" which is kind of ironic.

 
I plan to get a quad penryn later, but have been watching the 6600 quad drop in price alot lately and still going down.
 
I did a google of performance reviews for that chip and most reviews I saw were dissappointing in that the chip appears slower than a comparable duo of the same speed?  I figured they would be the same or close.
 
Are they slower (especially in games), or are those reviews bogus?
 
They're slower per clock... this is true. But it really varies on the apps. Current games might showcase it as being slower (with the exception of Doom3 and Quake 4) but future games won't (such as Crysis and Alan Wake for example).
 
Encoding is also faster per clock as is transcoding... and I do quite of bit of that as I transcode my 1080P Blue Ray titles into 720P format.
 
So really.. it depends on the things you use your PC for.