Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Quad Core vs Dual Core

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 6, 2008 9:20:40 PM

In my hunt for a new CPU, these two have perked my interest:

Intel Dual Core: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Intel Quad Core: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

My question for you is, which one? The dual core clocks at 3.0 GHz and the quad at 2.4.

I'm not leaning towards the dual core.

Thoughts?

More about : quad core dual core

January 6, 2008 9:47:18 PM

What do you need the computer for? I recommend the Q6600, it's 500 cents cheaper.
January 6, 2008 9:54:09 PM

depends, whats it for?
Related resources
January 6, 2008 10:08:48 PM

Primarily gaming. I'm getting an 8800GTS 512MB and will have 4GB of RAM.

Also, when I said I'm not leaning towards the dual core, I meant I AM leaning towards it (typed not for some reason :p ).
January 6, 2008 10:46:21 PM

Well you can OC the Q6600 to 3Ghz easily with the right hardware...and some time, so with 4GB of ram and a 3GHz quad core you are in a good position.

If you are not into OCing then get the dual core.

Also if you are not running a 64bit OS then stick with the dual core: because the 32 bit OS will not use all 4GB of ram, and it is in a sense a waste to rely on 4GB of ram that is not recognized and add to that two cores (from the quad) that are rarely used for games and you have a waste of money.

Anywho the most I can see the Quad make at 3GHz is 10-15fps from a base of more than 60 (with your 8800GTS 512) so you won't notice a huge diff...

Stick with the Dual...unless you want to OC or want to OC AND have a 64 bit OS.

Have fun!
January 6, 2008 10:50:03 PM

I like quads especially the q6600 for the best value. Do you ever encode avi(s) to dvd, use dvd shrink, utorrent (azereus), firefox, avg(other virus scanners), maybe throw in a few dvd decrypter sessions, and run folding at home SMP all at once, then throw a cpu intensive game like Supreme Commander Forged Alliance on top of all that and still have it run fine. I do that stuff daily and couldn't go back to computing any other way. Make sure you get enough ram though.
January 6, 2008 10:51:55 PM

You should be able to overclock the Quad to 3.0GHZ (with retail heatsink). At that point, you have two extra free cores! :)  With a better heatsink, you could go may be 3.2.

If you go with the Quad, just make sure it's a G0 core stepping.
January 6, 2008 11:00:57 PM

LoneEagle said:
You should be able to overclock the Quad to 3.0GHZ (with retail heatsink). At that point, you have two extra free cores! :)  With a better heatsink, you could go may be 3.2.

If you go with the Quad, just make sure it's a G0 core stepping.


B3 is fine, mine is at 3.2ghz. Anand did a comparison and didn't find much of a difference. I doubt one would find any B3s left anymore but if that's what a store sells the b3 q6600 overclocks fine.
January 6, 2008 11:06:12 PM

Q6600 for sure. Overclocking it to 3.0Ghz is ridiculously easy, many call it a 'free' overclock on a P35 or X38 motherboard because those boards run at 1333 while the Q6600 is stock @ 1066. All you need to do is literally change the fsb in bios for the Q6600 from 266 to 333 and boom, 3Ghz Quad Core (dont need to change any voltages or anything).

Also consider that newer games and apps are already taking advantage of quad cores, and 'older' ones that are only optimized for one or two cores will still run very well on a Quad; it's the difference between playing at say 100fps (dual core) vs 80fps (quad core), it's not noticable except in benchmarks :) 
January 6, 2008 11:11:50 PM

So you guys are saying I just buy the quad core and OC it to 3.0 in the BIOS (that's all it takes right? I have no experience OCing), and I just use the stock fan?
January 6, 2008 11:16:05 PM

inSaneELF said:
So you guys are saying I just buy the quad core and OC it to 3.0 in the BIOS (that's all it takes right? I have no experience OCing), and I just use the stock fan?

It will take you 1 minute to overclock. Really easy. :) 
January 6, 2008 11:17:21 PM

If you get a G series stepping q6600 the stock intel heatsink/fan would work, with the B3 series stepping I would upgrade to a heatsink/fan with some heatpipes.

What's your motherboard by the way, you need a 680/780 nvidia or p35/38 intel motherboard for core overclocking to be painlessly easy.
January 6, 2008 11:20:12 PM

My mobo is the nForce 680i.

Btw, how do I know what series I get?
January 6, 2008 11:27:48 PM

Not sure on that MB, but on a abit IP 35Pro, OC was as simple as they say. But, with 4gb beware, I have heard some people say Windows Vista will not initially boot with 4gb.

If you are going to any multitasking, then I would recommend the Q6600, then OC to 3ghz, and when games start to use the extra cores, you are all set.

January 6, 2008 11:28:07 PM

inSaneELF said:
So you guys are saying I just buy the quad core and OC it to 3.0 in the BIOS (that's all it takes right? I have no experience OCing), and I just use the stock fan?


Get this cooler and maybe you can OC this baby (Q6600) to 3.6GHz.


http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
January 6, 2008 11:30:08 PM

Thanks for the link, but I assume there's no way to order a Q6600 with G0 stepping specifically, so what if I get one with B3 stepping?

Also, regarding the 4GB or RAM: what do you mean Vista doesn't boot initially with 4GB?
January 6, 2008 11:43:22 PM

inSaneELF said:
Thanks for the link, but I assume there's no way to order a Q6600 with G0 stepping specifically, so what if I get one with B3 stepping?

Also, regarding the 4GB or RAM: what do you mean Vista doesn't boot initially with 4GB?



You can find a q6600 sold only as G0 at some sites, don't remember which ones they are, but for the most part the whole stepping debate has been whole lot of hot air and doesn't matter all that much.

And I quote:
"The impact on overclocking is a little less clear, at least with the quad-core Q6600. We were able to reach a higher maximum overclock with the SLACR stepping Q6600, but our highest stable overclock was not that much more than our original B3 stepping. If we look at percentages, our G0 part managed a 3 - 6% better overclock, putting overclocking potential in line with the power savings we noted. It's not a tremendously better overclocker but we suspect that on a whole it will yield tangible benefits.

There's no doubt that the new G0 stepping cores represent the latest improvements in the Core 2 lineup, but it's worthwhile to keep expectations in line with reality. If you're looking for a huge change in power consumption/overclocking headroom, you may have to wait for Intel's 45nm Penryn cores." Anand Lal Shimpi
AnandTech

January 6, 2008 11:56:27 PM

So getting a G0 q6600 isn't crucial.

thuan said:
Vista has a bug that makes it won't boot up on certain configuration with over 3GB of RAM. Take a look at this http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929777


So can't I just install Vista with 2GB of RAM, download the update from the URL you provided, and pop in the additional 2GB of RAM?
January 7, 2008 12:21:58 AM

Q6600.
January 7, 2008 12:59:29 AM

Two weeks until Wolfie and likely Yorkie debut day. I'd advise you don't buy a thing until you see what comes out then.
January 7, 2008 1:17:59 AM

OlSkoolChopper said:
Two weeks until Wolfie and likely Yorkie debut day. I'd advise you don't buy a thing until you see what comes out then.

I'm sure those will debut at the OP price range of around $275. :sarcastic: 
January 7, 2008 1:36:30 AM

I have a Q6600 w/ TT120 @ 3.42ghz with a max load temp of 61c. 3.6ghz is doable on air but runs prettty warm at that speed on air. The Q6600 at the same speed as any C2D is slightly faster but the C2Ds OC higher in skilled hands. The Q over 3ghz is blazing fast and compared to the C2D will give you double the 3DMark06 cpu score even when the e6850 is at 3.8ghz. With the 88800GTS 512 you should get 13-14000+ with ease. I think the Quad is the way to go but if you want to get a C2D and are going to OC; I would suggest you get the E6750. You will be new to OCing and the E6750 is much cheaper and OCs like mad. With the E6850, you will gain 1 multiplier value and if you don't know what that does you don't need to pay for it.
January 7, 2008 1:58:42 AM

lobofanina said:
I'm sure those will debut at the OP price range of around $275. :sarcastic: 


Roll your eyes at this, dude!

CORE 2 QUAD PRO Q9300 2.5 6M 1333 BOX LGA775 $309.74

http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=75604H22&vpn=BX80580Q9300&manufacture=INTEL%20-%20PROCESSORS

BOX CORE 2 DUO E8500 3.16G 6M 1333 I64 S775 $307.44

http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=35102G22&vpn=BX80570E8500&manufacture=INTEL%20-%20PROCESSORS

...and Canadian prices to boot! :kaola: 
January 7, 2008 2:03:29 AM

Hmm...so you're saying I just wait for this new quad core?
January 7, 2008 2:55:26 AM

Not bad, but do any real countries have it for sale or only this mythical place called Canada. :kaola:  :lol: 

Nice find OlSkoolChopper but I doubt he'll get much overclock using a 680i, wouldn't one need a x48 chipset to do any real damage with that processor. At that point mine as well wait for nahalem if one is going to have replace ram, motherboard, and processor.
January 7, 2008 6:33:46 AM

Quote:
how is it that the C2D would run games better than Q? even if you do OC it to 3.8 that is only 2 cores at 3.8 compared to 4 cores at 3.2 ... i dont know much about OCing but i do know 4 is better than 2.....


Now to your first question, on a Core 2 you have only 2 processers that have to share the same bus, 4 cores have to share the same bus causing a small traffic jam. Overclocking removes this side effect and will put most Core 2 Quads ahead of a duel core.

There comes a point where further overclocking doesn't add that much more performance to games, example my E6600 at 2.4GHz bottlenecks my overclocked 8800GTX. When my E6600 runs at 3.2GHz my 8800GTX comes to life with more FPS and just plain runs smoother, but after 3.2GHz I get no more performance to say 3.8GHz. My whole example is based off of Crysis because of its very high dependency on graphics power.


****E6600 @ 2.4GHz.****


By systemlord at 2007-12-07



****E6600 @ 3.2GHz****


By systemlord at 2007-12-11
January 7, 2008 7:15:29 AM

Quad vs Duel cores! Now that's a fun topic!---

If you are primarily a gamer like me, a Quad core will be mostly non beneficial for quite a while yet. Games like crysis actually don't gain an ounce of improved performance with a quad vs a duel (at similar speeds), and the duels tend to have a higher maximum overclock then quads (which people on these forums rarely seem to mention).

People here keep saying "get the Q6600 it can OC to 3.2ghz) as if they don't realize the E6750 will probably get to 3.6-3.8 for an OC! And right now YES that is better for gaming!
Of course the E6750 or E6850 are overpriced duel cores! So it is hard to recommend them.

However, with the release of the E8400 duel core penryn the tides will change! That chip will be $200-$220, and easily overclock to 4-4.5ghz! There is little chance any Q6600 will get that high unless you spend big $ on bizarre cooling solutions, in addition to the fact that it will still be a $280 chip (Intel has no plans to reduce pricing on it)
The E8400 is an amazing deal for $200, and has a 9x multiplier, meaning we won't have to run some ridiculous FSB speeds to get 4+ghz.... 4.5ghz is not crazy or impossible either with this chip.


IF NOT Q6600, WHAT ABOUT PENRYN QUADS?---
The new Q9450, the only reasonable choice for the new quads and OCing with a budget, is limited in overclocking potential thanks to the 8x max multiplier! Getting it to 4ghz will require a MOBO that can manage a very fast FSB, and will also likely be a $350 part for quite some time. Going higher to the Q9550 will yield a better OC, but cost $200 more!
In my opinion the new quads are too expensive, and have the serious problem of not been needed at all or utilized properly by games anytime soon.

So.... Some people have a genuine need for the 4 cores no doubt, but for pure gamers, who want the best performance NOW and throughout 2008, I think the E8400 will be king for quite some time in the price to performance ratio. Games will NOT properly use quad cores anytime soon, nor do they need to. Crysis is pretty good evidence that we need more GPU power now, not CPU. People would do much better to buy the E8400 for $200, and use the $150 they saved not buying the Q9450 to buy another GPU for SLI or X-fire, or saving up for nahalem lol.

And that is yet another reason I don't like the quad solution right now. Paying big bucks for the Q9450, by the time we get games that need or use it properly, here is nahalem.... A much better cpu!

Sorry for the long post, =)



January 7, 2008 8:39:44 AM

^
Quote:
Games like crysis actually don't gain an ounce of improved performance with a quad vs a duel (at similar speeds)


Very true............

^
Quote:
Of course the E6750 or E6850 are overpriced duel cores! So it is hard to recommend them


Very UNTRUE.......

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&m...

The E6750 has the VERY BEST performance/price ratio and i strongly recommend it! The Q6600 costs $100 more and its slower than the E6750 in 95% of applications.

And the Penryns will blow away the older CPUs without a doubt.
January 7, 2008 10:51:21 AM

The Dual /Quad core debate is a very esoteric one at best. Above 3ghz the speed differences are irrelevent...sort of like arguing the benefits of a 11.9 sec 4cyl boosted street racer over a 12.1 sec V8 NA street racer for everyday driving when a 14 sec machine is better than a most people will ever need. No one can see the FPS difference between the quad and the dual core. It is pure bragging rights and e-penis. As systemlord points out an old E6600 at 3.2ghz has more power than his GTX can benefit from. And here is a clue...neither will improve your game play!

The power and future still lies with the quad+. Everybody argued that the single core was faster in games also and it was... but not any longer and the X2s that replaced them are still viable chips. They are still more than enough for most games and everyday applications. It didn't take long for games and applications to utilize the extra power so why will this time be any different? If you do more than game then consider a quad. It simply has more power even at stock and therefore a better future.
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&m...
January 7, 2008 11:24:55 AM

Dude games RIGHT NOW don't need a Quad core processor, for they don't really make use of the other two cores.....now its very obvious that future games MOST DEFINITELY would run better with a Quad....... The Crysis sequels, for example, according to lead animator of Crytek, Steven Bender are apparently going to look even better that the original game.... Even the much anticipated Alan Wake is being made SPECIFICALLY for the Quad (as stated by the Remedy Enetertaintment CEO).... maybe ditto even for FarCry 2.... and these games are going to crush the current CPUs for sure.... so the point is, if anyone wants to get a Quad processor for futureproofing, i STRONGLY suggest they wait for the Penryns to arrive..... spending $100 extra for the current Q6600 will seem a waste of money after the Penryns arrive (when anyways its slower than the E6750 for todays games).....
a b à CPUs
January 7, 2008 12:42:16 PM

You guys always take into account that people are buying for 'right now' and not that they might want something that scales better in a year or 2. Yes, games run better on the duals than quads right now, because they really only utilize 2 cores and like the clock speeds. BUT, as time progresses, 4 cores will be needed, and the quad 6600 does OC fairly well if you know what you are doing. Either case, arguing for or against either 2 or 4 cores is pointless...by the time a quad is REALLY needed for gaming, 8 cores and more will be available, and recommendations will change.

I have a quad, it currently runs 99% of the time at 3.0 and I game a lot on it with much happiness and pleasure...and no slowdowns or hitches. Hell, there have been a lot of times that my virus scan kicks in and I don't know the difference until after I close out of the game and see the console running...
January 7, 2008 12:50:51 PM

lobofanina said:
Not bad, but do any real countries have it for sale or only this mythical place called Canada. :kaola:  :lol: 

Nice find OlSkoolChopper but I doubt he'll get much overclock using a 680i, wouldn't one need a x48 chipset to do any real damage with that processor. At that point mine as well wait for nahalem if one is going to have replace ram, motherboard, and processor.


Ya, other threads have shown that there are some US etailers that have the same chips listed and at simlar prices. I wish Canada was mithical that way I coudl live in California and ride year round! I'd hold off to Nehalem too but I have to replace my poor beaten to death P-D 915 now, so I'm going with whatever Intel is releasing in two weeks and then dumping that to some unsuspectng sucka on ebay in 12 months when the new CPUs come out.
January 7, 2008 1:00:52 PM

inSaneELF said:
So getting a G0 q6600 isn't crucial.



So can't I just install Vista with 2GB of RAM, download the update from the URL you provided, and pop in the additional 2GB of RAM?

Right.
January 7, 2008 1:02:37 PM

thuan said:
Right.

But make sure you reboot to Windows after you installed the patch and then shutdown and install remaining ram.
January 7, 2008 1:08:40 PM

LoneEagle said:
But make sure you reboot to Windows after you installed the patch and then shutdown and install remaining ram.


That's the wuss way. Real men install RAM with the system runing! Especially after draging their feet on the carpet so you can see that half inch spark between your fingertip and the mobo, just to teach it whose the boss! :pt1cable: 

Moderator Note: This is a JOKE - DO NOT install RAM or any components this way - static electricity kills PC parts ... :pfff: 
January 7, 2008 1:49:42 PM

mihirkula...dude...ya miss the point!
January 7, 2008 1:52:38 PM

OlSkoolChopper...ROFLMAO! Now some poor dumb schmuck is going to try that!!!!
January 7, 2008 2:17:25 PM

Craxbax said:
OlSkoolChopper...ROFLMAO! Now some poor dumb schmuck is going to try that!!!!


Domenance is just as important with mobos as with women. They'll only respect you if you tie them up and zap them with an electric cattleprod when they've been naughty! :pt1cable: 
January 7, 2008 2:35:38 PM

OlSkoolChopper said:
That's the wuss way. Real men install RAM with the system runing! Especially after draging their feet on the carpet so you can see that half inch spark between your fingertip and the mobo, just to teach it whose the boss! :pt1cable: 

:whistle:  What I was saying is: After you install the patch, reboot windows and then shutdown. Not install the patch, shutdown, intall ram.

It better to reboot after installing the patch before installing the RAM.
January 7, 2008 2:37:10 PM

As an aside, in the 70s I built a 61" pan, 15 degree raked, rigid frame with Girder front end, King/queen seat with highrise pull backs. Rode it to Daytona for it's maiden voyage...how's that for old skool choppers? lol
January 7, 2008 4:31:45 PM

Did anyone here happen to take advantage of the Fry's Black Friday sale when they had a Boxed Q6600(G0 SLACR) and a MB for $198.00. To say that Intel will not decrease the price on the Q6600 is a stretch, I do not think FRY's would take this hit alone, and they had plenty available. Since they(INTEL) is NOW holding up on the release of the Q9450 (because of AMD's inabilty to release competitive chips)they may be able to flush them (Q6600's)out of the system before the new 1333fsb chips are released. However they are NOT on the roadmap to be quickly discontinued.

On the other hand, since the new chips are 45nm they will be cheaper to produce but there is a changeover cost to convert the 65NM process factories to 45nm. If you are going to wait for the release of the next wave of chips keep a sharp eye on the price of the Q6600, Intel may drop price on it just before the release of the 'mainstream' 45's(depending on how many are still in the system).

Keep in mind everything all of us say in many areas here is speculative because we as consumers have less perfect info than the manufacturers and they are playing a chess game with each other. If you need a chip today that is one thing. If you can wait--who knows what the price performance capability will be. I was going to wait but a boxed Q6600 for <$200 with a throwaway MB included was too much to resist. Did I need it at the time-NO still havent installed it but did buy a Maximus Formula SE to put it in and any other greater offering INTEL may release to us. I can then put the Q6600 in my other ASUS MB's which house an E4300 @2.88 and an E6400 @3.0

Another thing, Don't skimp on a motherboard, look at the intel roadmap and check for future compatibility so you have an upgrade path. Be aware of the imminent socket change that will occur in the probable near future and take this into consideration based on your upgrade habits. That would take you into whether you want to stick with DDR2 or make the jump to DDR3 (which I do not recommend at this time).

Long post but some thought to consider. Thanks to all for your time.
January 7, 2008 6:17:07 PM

^ I got the point mate.

1)
Quote:
The power and future still lies with the quad+


Completely agree with you.

2)
Quote:
No one can see the FPS difference between the quad and the dual core. It is pure bragging rights and e-penis


Strongly agree with you.

I'm just saying that buying a q6600 now is not the best thing to do considering the Penryns have arrived. (Especially considering point number (2) and also for futureproofing, which is point number 1)...hence for those who want a CPU for temporary purpose (and would buy a Penryn later), the E6750 is the very best.

Regardless of the FPS remaining the same, buying a faster processor is helpful when theres a load of multitasking going on.
January 7, 2008 6:23:06 PM


1)
Quote:
The power and future still lies with the quad+


Completely agree with you.

2)
Quote:
No one can see the FPS difference between the quad and the dual core. It is pure bragging rights and e-penis


Strongly agree with you.

I'm just saying that buying a q6600 now is not the best thing to do considering the Penryns have arrived. (Especially considering point number (2) and also for futureproofing, which is point number 1)...hence for those who want a CPU for temporary purpose (and would buy a Penryn later), the E6750 is the very best.

Regardless of the FPS remaining the same, buying a faster processor is helpful when theres a load of multitasking going on.
January 7, 2008 6:34:24 PM

LoneEagle said:
:whistle:  What I was saying is: After you install the patch, reboot windows and then shutdown. Not install the patch, shutdown, intall ram.

It better to reboot after installing the patch before installing the RAM.


I was JK. Just trying to find a segwe into tying women up and electric shox, my favorite hobby.

Craxbax said:
As an aside, in the 70s I built a 61" pan, 15 degree raked, rigid frame with Girder front end, King/queen seat with highrise pull backs. Rode it to Daytona for it's maiden voyage...how's that for old skool choppers? lol


We are not worthy, King of the Pan! Rigid and girder, huh... I bet your ass was so callused by the time you got to Daytona that it looked like medeval armor! :lol: 
January 7, 2008 6:43:28 PM

So when do these Penryns release? I know nothing about these.
January 7, 2008 6:56:03 PM

inSaneELF said:
So when do these Penryns release? I know nothing about these.


Check the front page of Tom's today for a full list and debut dates.
January 7, 2008 7:07:30 PM

Call me an idiot, but I couldn't seem to find anything.
!