Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Core 2 duo or quad core

Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 3, 2008 1:18:53 AM

Alright, so, im planning to buy a new PC in about 2 weeks when the Geforce 280 GTX comes out (yay)
so I was just wondering, what is better, a Core 2 duo processor, or a quad core. I would imagine quad core would be the best... but ive heard that core 2 duo are better for games.
Also while i am on here, can anyone tell me if the 280 GTX would be able to max out crysis?

More about : core duo quad core

June 3, 2008 6:42:09 AM

Duos are faster for now but as quad cores get better support they will be faster.
June 3, 2008 7:09:49 AM

i would definitely get a quad. get the 45 nm one too. they can clock close to 4 ghz too.
Related resources
June 3, 2008 7:15:49 AM

+1 for the quad.

As for Duo's being faster for games, it's a common misconception. They are faster at LOW resolutions. Quads will destroy a Duo at High res clock per clock.
June 3, 2008 7:27:04 AM

This is the most popular thread/query in the world :) 

E8400 which costs virtually the same as a Q6600 (maybe $15 less) performs faster than the quad in all games and almost all applications. (Supreme Commander gains a negligible 2 FPS with Q6600 and thats it). Now in the future surely quad is going to better since the games and apps would be taking advantage of the fou cores of the quad ...but this future is at least 1.5 to 2 yrs from now...and by then a completely different architecture called Nehalem would arrive and become mainstream shortly.... anything you buy now would seem obsolete in 2 years time... so go for whatever the best performer is today!!! Vis a Vis, E8400 if you're gonna mostly game, Q6600 if you're gonna do some heavy duty vid editing.

Yeah the new cards, both radeon and nvidia would release during june 15 to 18. GTX280 should max out Crysis...otherwise it would be a huge waste of money buying that $600 card.

June 3, 2008 7:30:33 AM

lucuis said:
+1 for the quad.

As for Duo's being faster for games, it's a common misconception. They are faster at LOW resolutions. Quads will destroy a Duo at High res clock per clock.


Disagree.

It's the other way round.
June 3, 2008 7:31:25 AM

or perhaps, the cpu has NOTHING to due with high resolution as long as it doesnt bottleneck the video card, and hardware acceleration is enabled.
a b à CPUs
June 3, 2008 7:32:18 AM

Yup, a dual core CPU that is clocked higher will give you better performance than a lower clocked quad. This will hold true for 90%+ of current applications and 95%+ of current games. In the nearish future this should start to change but for now, a high speed dual core is king.

Also, a similary clocked dual and quad will perform nearly the same. The quad may pull foreward due to a larger L2 cach.
June 3, 2008 8:10:12 AM

Unless you intend to OC then a quad is a poor choice for most apps.
a b à CPUs
June 3, 2008 8:14:34 AM

PPPPPPFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

a Core 2 Duo E6300 @ 1.86ghz can run ANY of todays apps and games with excess performance spare, but because quads are so friggin cheap GET A Q6600 which runs at 2.4ghz and be done with!

Bugger these "dual cores are faster" - wtf you on about? all modern games are going multi threading and its not as if you cant raise that quad to match a dual core speed :sarcastic: 

Dual cores are now slipping to basic cpus - even celerons/semperons are now coming out as dual.
Anonymous
June 3, 2008 8:31:15 AM

Quote:

mihirkula wrote:

This is the most popular thread/query in the world :) 

E8400 which costs virtually the same as a Q6600 (maybe $15 less) performs faster than the quad in all games and almost all applications. (Supreme Commander gains a negligible 2 FPS with Q6600 and thats it). Now in the future surely quad is going to better since the games and apps would be taking advantage of the fou cores of the quad ...but this future is at least 1.5 to 2 yrs from now...and by then a completely different architecture called Nehalem would arrive and become mainstream shortly.... anything you buy now would seem obsolete in 2 years time... so go for whatever the best performer is today!!! Vis a Vis, E8400 if you're gonna mostly game, Q6600 if you're gonna do some heavy duty vid editing.

Yeah the new cards, both radeon and nvidia would release during june 15 to 18. GTX280 should max out Crysis...otherwise it would be a huge waste of money buying that $600 card.



Fully agree. Get an E8400, wait for the 4800's / 280's, get one, benchmark your system with Crysis and throw that crappy game / awesome tech-demo away!



June 3, 2008 8:34:10 AM

Geesh... flip a coin.

Dual core can hold their own. They can be OC'd to insane speeds.

I've played crysis on my E4400 OC (2.8ghz) vs my Q6600 (2.4ghz) STOCK and can't really tell the difference in game play.

And if you think your OS is not going to make the most out of the other cores, well... you don't own a quad. :lol: 
June 3, 2008 10:46:02 AM

The only relevant question is what you do with it and how often do you upgrade. If you upgrade to Nehalem before you utilize all cores of a quad-core, buying one doesn't seem smart.
June 3, 2008 10:48:23 AM

Yet people who claim that 8400 higher clocked will be faster than quad in almost any game are correct, that doesn't quite answer the man's original question.

The answer is if clocks are equal then quad will outperform any dual core or be at par. Other question is if he can afford it but that's his decision. He wants a GTX280 which means he doesnt have problems with money :)  so dont mislead him.

If you can get a quad and overclock it or get a fast stock quad. You wont regret it.

Especially Crysis needs any performance you can give it and it utilizes Quad core so if you really want to play crysis on max settings you will be better with quad

!