hello
 
we often read that dual core CPU of higher clock speed may be better than quad core CPU of lower clock speed
and this because very few or no "tasks" can take advantage of 2 or more cores
 
that is logical at first sight
 
but in real life situations, we almost never do single tasking in our pc
we run internet browser, antivirus, winrar, MS Office, etc and numerous OS tasks
 
so my question is, in such situations, won't a quad core have advantage over a dual core?  
or dual core's faster clock will still give advantage to it?
 
many software now may not support more than one core, but because:
1) we run many software simultaneously
2) we run many OS tasks and OSes nowadays support multiple cores
I suppose quad core will always have advantage
 
however, I cannot estimate the actual advantage in REAL LIFE situations, since I see everywhere benchmarks for a single task
 
I would like to see your justified thoughts on this
 
thanks

It depends on how much your multitask. I run torrents constantly, even while running heavy applications like games. So, quad is a necessity for me. Also, quad optimized applications are already being produced. The "future proofing" is more of a matter of months instead of years.

Anything I typically do is the sole thing I have opened on my machine at the time.
 
I actually find that my e-8400 clocked at 4000mhz is better than my q6600 at 3700mhz. This is especially so with games since the higher clockspeed of the e8400 with the better cache and more work per clock enables far better shader performance to my dual 3870x2 setup.
 
I know a lot of people like to cite 3dmark as something that is non legitimate, but I will use it as an example.
 
When I use my e8400 with it, I get a lower cpu score of course since thhe cpu test is heavily multithreaded and relies on a quad for the highest score, or ability to render.
 
With the quad I can get another 2 frames per second out of the same test.
 
But going back to the e8400 in the video tests, my shader model 3.0 score exceeds 12000, as opposed to my quad that can barely break 11000 in the same test.
 
I get an everage of 10 fps higher in tests 1,2,5, and 6.
 
Of course this could be argued with and everyone's machines are different, but In a game situation I can get the same results with higher fps using the e8400.
 
I am sure if a developer were to create a nicely multithreaded game, the quad would begin to pull away fromt the e8400, but nowadays and in my opinion, if you are a gamer, there is no real reason to go to a quad over a dual core.
 
if you do video editing, decoding and the like, you will see a benefit with the quad core. I am not ready to conclue that a quad core is really justified for the most part. Of course there is nothing wrong with it, and comparing my 65nm quad to my 45nm dual might not be a fair comparison. that is also open for debate.
 
Either way though, if you have a late model quad or dual core, you are not going to have any problems with anything. I find both chips to be great.
 
if you like to have 30 things opened at once, the quad with windows 64 and lots of ram is great.
 
If you game, then an e8400 on win32 with 2gig is fine.
 
just my take.

I'm a heavy multi-tasker and currently run a Pentium D (dual-core) at typically 75% most of the time.  I'm working on a quad-core build now with 4gb ram and Vista 64 so I'm hoping this will ease my system stress a bit and even allow me to do more.

 
It will. I have a Q6600 w 4GB and Vista 32(need to buy the 64bit version) and no matter what I do my CPU barely goes over 30% total usage. And thats with a game such a Crysis or TF2. When just doing stuff outside of a game it is rarely huitting 20% and stays aroung 8-10%.
 
Either way its dependant on what you want to do, what you feel is best and how long you plan to keep the computer before upgrading/building a new one. If you want it to last more than 3 years a quad will be more beneficial. If you build new every 2 years or so a dual may be the best.

 
When I'm doing those kind of things on my Athlon X2, the CPU is running around 5% usage while throttled back from 2.6GHz to 1GHz.
 
I agree with the sentiment, but you just don't need much CPU power for word processing, web browsing and the like. Given how fast operating systems switch between tasks these days, even a single core would probably be fine.

 
 
This is the way a benchmark should be used, as a referance, not a true hardcore its always this way result, im happy to see someone who understands this. I am also one of those people that never sees there quad go past 30% usage at most times. I really appreciate what a quad brings to the table, a ability to keep my multitasking smooth, while at the same time bringing me a good quality gaming experience. The other thing i noticed is that if i have a app going that chooses to freeze up for whatever reason, i can still get ctrl+alt+delete to pop up rather quickly for me, something i wasnt able to do with my old p4 system, which would just remain unresponsive. Ive read many times, and have disagreed with, people saying the quad doesnt bring to the table a good gaming experience. This is very untrue, gaming on a quad works out just fine, and i regularly end up in the top 8 on which ever team im on. Is there a huge benefit out there for quads right now? Not especially, but as soon as we start seeing multithreading games coming out though, the quad will begin to shine. Until then, its a nifty piece of hardware that is priced quite competitively with its duel core bretheren.

encoding video with x264 on a multicore machine... results:
Performance scales near linearly with cores.
 
This is my sole reason for upgrading to a quadcore

I have run SupCom and COD4 at the same time on my quad, with one minimized, switching back and forth.  SupCom doesn't really like being Alt+Tabbed, but I wasn't able to tell if I was taking a hit or not on performance.  I assume that since an app is minimized, Windows is only letting it sit idle so it might be possible on any machine with enough RAM to keep up.  
 
In any respect, I have had my virus scan kick off in the middle of a game and finish and I wouldn't even know until I closed out of the game and saw the on-screen message it had completed.

 
that is my only reason to go from dual core to quadcore too

Honestly as long as you do not encode HD vido for hours on end multiple times a week, just save your money and buy a Nahelm later.  I have owned Quadcore and Dualcore alike, the E6750 is the best deal on the market since it almost runs neck and neck with the E8500 clock for clock, and overclocks much better as well.  Regardless in "real life" there is almost no difference, I have minimized games, listened to music, browsed the web, downloaded media, and ran my Virus/spyware/firewall on all active High settings without a single slowdown.  I am using an E6750 @ 3.6GHz, I had bought a Q9650 and had planned to give my E6750 away, but found the difference was patheticly small.  Honestly If you plan on paying more than $200 then get the Q6600, but if you are smart you will buy an E6750 and get almost the exact same performance and, with a little overclocking, better performance for less than $200.
 
I know some people will hate this post, but this is the honest truth and no matter what you say, unless you have directly and personally used an E6750 and a Q6600 or above, then you wont understand the difference, and those who do know will be honest with themselves and largely agree.

Some of the examples you cite are not very processor intensive.  For example, having 6 IE windows, antivirus, and WINRAR.  Out of all those tasks the only one that may use some processing power is WINRAR if you're currently compressing or uncompressing something.
 
But if you're a MEGATASKER that needs platformance like my old friend BaronMatrix, quad-core would allow you to run multiple instances of WoW while encoding large amounts of "videos".

heh, define large amount.
Depending on the filters I use, just encoding a single standard dvd to x264 and 6channel vorbis takes anywhere from 3-5 hours on a x2 3800+. 1080p sources can take over 24 hours!
 
a simple 3.0ghz Q6600 can do what mine can in about 1/3 of the time :|
I want one

Someone poseted in another thread about the difference between multi-tasking and multi-processing.  I don't think people understand the difference.  Having seven different programs open that you alt-tab between is much more likely to tax your memory than your processor.  
 
Also, once games are optimised for quad cores (and actually need the power) you will probably be upgrading your current quad because nehalem will have been out for a year and an half, and maybe something even better that smokes the current generation.
 
Now if you do a lot of rendering using lots of filters, then a quad is great.

San Pedro is absolutely right, just wait for Nahalem.  Also I understand the difference and was commenting on the OP's question directly, when your running multiple windows a Dual or a Quad will do about the same.

The problem is, what if you have to buy now and can't wait? I used an old Northwood P4 oced to 3.8ghz for 5 years, until it died...

So yeah, basically, when you have to choose between dual and quad (and not, say, quad and Nahalem), go for quad. Years back, when dual chips first came out, some of the exact same arguments were presented against it from teh 1337 ocer ppl were more comfortable with their trusty single cores than new dual cores. Now, early dual cores are slow, but still fast enough to be useful for gaming, and comparable single cores from the same period are completely worthless. Nahalem is an unknown quantity, it might be good, or it might not. It is also set to arrive at the end of the year, if Intel don't delay it like they did with Yorkfield cpus. Not to mention they'll charge sky price for new hardware, so unless you're rich, it'll be a while longer until you can pocket one. It's better to concern yourself with what's here now. And now, quad is the smart bet.

to sum up, the truth must be that dual core outperform quad cores so far even at multitasking and only at video editing do worse than quad cores
 
and the reason for this is that most programs don't take advantage of quad cores
 
but again, let's say I run web browser with 50 webpages opened, winrar extracting, dvd burning, torrents or http downloader
 
this is 4 tasks, what if the first two tasks go with 2 cores of a quad core and the rest two tasks go with the other 2 cores of the quad core
 
isn't this possible? the OS isn't suppose to do this? to give tasks to each core?
 
I suppose logicaly quad cores would always have the advantage, even if the programs don't support quad core
 
I really can't imagine how most say dual is better than quad for now
the only way to think of it, is that current quad cores are not TRUE quad cores, and they are just one core processors, somewhat devided into 4 small sub-processors and this deviding doesn't not increase performance at all and it is just a marketing trick to sell more

A quad core is basically 2 dual core cpus on one die.  It isnt a true quad core and thats where AMD is trying to establish the difference with their cpus is that they are actually 4 cores on one die.
 
I think the current bottleneck in the Intel quad cores is the memory controller.
 
Im certain this will be overcome in future multi core cpus...