Tom's Hardware > Forum > CPU & Components > CPUs > Dual now, Quad later?

Dual now, Quad later?

Forum CPU & Components : CPUs - Dual now, Quad later?

Tom's Hardware: Over 1.4 million members in 6 different countries available to answer all your high-tech questions. Sign up now! Its free!

Ask the community Add a reply

Bottom Search this thread

This question keeps haunting me and is the last thing keeping me from ordering my comp parts.

I don't know if I should get a fast dual core now for gaming, then in a couple years when quad cores are being used more often, upgrade;

Or if I should get a Q9550 now, that way when the "quad core era" rolls around, I'll be all set. But I keep thinking by then, my quad will be outdated and considered one of the low end quads :[

halp.

Add a reply

If the end result is to be a quad, you save money by simply going for it, rather than buying two processors.

And really, a "low-end" quad is still going to last you a LONG time before you notice slowdown.

Reply to snarfies1

Quad will eventualy become obsolete. My advice is to buy a decent server board supporting 2 quad core cpus, and it gives you the scope for octocore performance if needed. The board im planning to use supports 32GB of ram fully buffered ECC so as you can see, there is plenty of time before you manage to buy a game or app that consumes those computational resourses.

Reply to kaboooom2000uk

yeah if you plan on keeping your system for any length of time (3 - 4 years) just get a quad.... even 2 years its worth getting a quad.... I just got a q9550 as well and i have it stable now at 3.85 ghz on an asus p5q deluxe.... it runs all processor intensive games like never before.... in supreme commander.... i haven't lagged once now.... and now an in game second actually takes a second.... not 4 seconds

FPS it can help with increasing minimum fps and increasing fps overall at loser resolutions but at higher ones its not so much of an issue

Reply to thogrom

i have a 1900 x 1200 monitor so i'll mostly be gaming at that resolution lol.

i guess i should stick with Q9550 as opposed to E8500 then

Reply to irishdude

do you think an E8500 will be able to handle high/very high settings in like 3-4 yrs, alongside (or maybe upgraded by then) a 4870 and 4gb RAM

p.s. sorry for all the questions but i'm ordering the comp in a couple hours and i just wanna make sure i'm getting what i want lol

Reply to irishdude

It all depends. I say if you plan on upgrading in 1-2 years then get the Dualcore and worry about Quadcores when Nehalem is fully out around Q1/2 09. If you do not want to upgrade, then the Q9550 is a great CPU.

Reply to The_Blood_Raven

What about the Q6600, with decent cooling should match the Q9550 and is half the price.

Reply to jamesgoddard

^^ Assuming you overclock...

Reply to jamesgoddard

the q6600 doesn't match the q9550.... the penryn core is about 10 % faster then a kentsfield... the q9550 has a multi of 8.5 and the q6600 has a multi of 9.... so if you have a fsb of 400 thats a 3.4 ghz q9550 vs a 3.6 ghz q6600.... multiply the speed of the q9550 by 1.1 and you get what its equivalent to in a kentsfield... 3.4 multiplied by 1.1 is equal to 3.74....

the q9550 is faster.... its the new q6600

Reply to thogrom

i don't know how lol. i could look into it.

also, iirc the Q6600 has 1066fsb. will OCing it mean a higher fsb as well? because some of the difference i noticed besides clock speed is fsb and L2 cache. i'm thinking the 2x4mb L2 cache won't differ much from the 12MB cache in the Q9550, but will OCing the Q6600 raise the fsb as well as clock speed?

i wish i understood OCing ;_;. it really does add another element to your CPU purchase

Reply to irishdude

personally i'm going to stick to my Duo till nehalem comes out, nehalem is going to be quad or greater, but the plus side to this is nehalem will basically adapt to the program and utilize it's cores/threads based on the particular program AND the less cores.threads used, the more power pushed to the cores/threads being used... hooray Nehalem!!! Truly innovative technology

Reply to jonpaul37

If you don't use software that benefits from a quad now (like video editing/encoding apps), what future products (next 1-3 years) will benefit from it??? Don't forget that on a PC, the hard drive is the biggest bottle neck to most apps. The GPU is more important for games, as features like PhysX and CUDA become available.

By the time you need a quad for games Nehalem will be out, offering a significant boost over current quads.

If you need speed now for games, the E8600, 4870X2, 4G DDR2, and a SSD HD will offer the best performance.

Reply to DXRick

didn't Intel say Nehalem wouldn't offer much of a boost for gaming over current quads

not to mention Nehalem uses a whole different slot, so you'd need a special motherboard. i also heard that the motherboards only use DDR3 RAM. if that's true, be prepared to shell out a lot of money for your next upgrade.

but you guys do have a point. i'm seriously considering goign dual core.

Message edited by irishdude on 08-29-2008 at 08:05:03 PM

Reply to irishdude

+ 1 ^ (meant for 2 posts up...)

Message edited by jonpaul37 on 08-29-2008 at 08:09:56 PM

Reply to jonpaul37

Nehalem will be insane for gaming!!! and seeing that it's comming out very soon, i'd say that 2 years from now the prices will have gone down a bit on the nehalem-based MoBo's and the nehalem's themselves, not to mention DDR3 RAM prices will have dropped... basically if a game that you play does not support quad core, the nehalem will essentially go into duo core mode and then self overclock... win win situation...

Reply to jonpaul37

where did you hear this... i've heard no mention of this at all

please show me

Reply to thogrom

i chose to settle for a dual core guys.

reason being i don't use enough hardcore programs to justify quad core. a fast dual core with a very good video card (considering 4870x2) will last me a long time, and by the time my system becomes obsolete and i start playing games on medium - low settings, that'll be a very long time from now.

to be honest, if i give this rig small updates when necessary, i plan on having it for maybe 4 - 5+ years. by then i'll get a new great rig with Nehalem 2 and whatnot lol.

Reply to irishdude

if your going to keep it taht long get a quad

trust me... games already are starting to show improvements with quads and it will only get better

if your going to keep the system for 2 years.... dual is fine... although it may start to tax at the end but for 4 - 5 years definetly get a quad

Reply to thogrom

UGGGGHHHHHHHHHH YOU'RE KILLING ME

*switches back to quad*

Reply to irishdude

Core i7 = Nehalem...

read and be merry!

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/T [...] ,6193.html

Reply to jonpaul37

Ya know. Look at it this way. If you get a dual core you're likely going to wonder if you should've gotten a quad. I highly doubt the reverse is true.

Get a quad. They're not expensive and even if you don't need it today its not going to hurt anything for you to have slightly more processor than you need.

I bought a quad back in March...a little Q9450. It overclocks nicely...and it underclocks nicely too.

When I don't need all that speed, like when I'm just listening to music or surfing the net for 3-4 hours I simply roll it back to 1.6Ghz...and its still fast enough...but when I need the power (virtualizing, etc.) I send it to 3.4Ghz and voila, I've got some power.

Versatility. ...for today...and tomorrow.

A dual-core is fine for today but its all-around not going to last you as long or offer performance that's as desirable as a quad's.

------------------------------ 17" MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz, 4GB DDR3-1066, 256GB Corsair P256 SSD
Reply to halcyon

i went for the Q9550 basically because of how cheap it was, everything nowadays is so cheap compared to when i built my current one, some people don't seem to know how good they have it, christ i picked up a 4870x2 for the same price as i paid for one x1900xt!!!!.

ludicrous and with these prices, why not just get something that you won't regret, i don't need the power but i wanted it so why not.

------------------------------ I'm a git, deal with it.

Antec 1200,PC Power & Cooling 750,Gigabyte DS4-x48,Intel Q9550@3.4 W/Xigmatek S1283,8GB OCZ DDR2 800,ATI 4870X2,X-FI>CA 640C amp>Tannoy R300/Senn 595's
Reply to Strangestranger

^ Well put.

------------------------------ 17" MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz, 4GB DDR3-1066, 256GB Corsair P256 SSD
Reply to halcyon

just get a dual core now. By the time games use quad or more cores, quad cores will be dirt cheap anyways. Any computer you buy now adays will probably out dated in 1 or 2 years and be obsolete in 3.

Reply to alucard4824

Ask the community Add a reply

Tom's Hardware > Forum > CPU & Components > CPUs > Dual now, Quad later?

Go to:

Help |
Forum rules

There are 1094 identified and unidentified users. To see the list of identified users, Click here.

Page generated in 0.369 seconds

Please mind

You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months.
If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.

Add a reply Cancel

Focus On

Dual now, Quad later?

Forum CPU & Components : CPUs - Dual now, Quad later?

Please mind