Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

What is better now and what is better later? Intel Quad or dual - Read

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 8, 2008 10:06:59 AM

Ok, I am looking to upgrade to a intel q6600 + new motherboard. The price is $190 USD, and the E8500 is 190 USD. Now, given in my obvious reasons, quad is more then dual, obviously. People in games that I have talked to have said the E8500, etc will be better for games, even 2-3 years from now. I don't see that being true at all. Wouldn't it be smart to get the quad core rather then a high end dual core for future proofing? Or would the FSB and other reasons make the dual core better even 2-3 years from now? I don't want to wait for the release of deneb and nehelem because ill need new ram, mobo, processor... I just don't want to upgrade all that stuff. Some advice would greatly be appreciated. thanks! I have a 9800 GTX to run the processor/s with.

More about : intel quad dual read

October 8, 2008 10:50:03 AM

To be honest, it most likely will be 2-3 years until the quadcorees finally start to perform the way they should. I am sticking with Duals for now and will probably wait til the second batch of nehalem, 32nm, to upgrade.
Related resources
October 8, 2008 11:01:45 AM

I actually have read that article, I wanted the people's opinion though. Thanks though, Randomizer.
October 8, 2008 12:29:07 PM

The performance is about the same with the core 2 vs the q6600, also the same price about as well though... Q6600 would make more sense to me. Need some more opinions on it though.
October 8, 2008 1:02:19 PM

Itll be awhile before going wider is better than going faster, especially for gaming. On the other hand, AI and physocs are something thats usefull having a quad, and I believe it was valve? saying they were definately heading in that direction, BUT, DX11 incorporates many of these things in it, and itll be out sometime next year. How that all translates into being used by the gfx card is little understood at this point for lack of information, but it is something to look forwards to in this decision, as Im certain some amount of DX11s capabilities will help , and use the gfx card more, and not having to have a quad as much. Overall, Id say a faster dual is still more important and will be for awhile, at least in single gfx card usage
a b à CPUs
October 8, 2008 1:22:49 PM

Buy for what works now. Right now, a fast dual core will outpace an un-overclocked quad for gaming. At least, in everything except a couple of games that will make good use of the extra cores. A couple that come to mind are MS flight simulator, and supreme commander.
It's simply not a good idea to try buying now for what will work well in 2-3 years. That's an eternity for any gaming machine to last. No matter WHAT you buy today, in that amount of time it's going to old and slow.
October 8, 2008 1:29:17 PM

You can't really say that Dual or Quad is going to be future proof when it comes to gaming. It really depends on the game you are playing, and the company that designed the game. Obviously developers are trying to make use of the extra cores, but who knows when quad will really be "the thing". Both the chips are great, and you cannot really notice a difference in everyday use between between either of those chips. If you are looking for max fps right now, more Ghz is going to do you better. As the above poster says, anything you buy right now, is going to be put to shame by the software boys in no time at all.
a b à CPUs
October 8, 2008 7:19:39 PM

Buy a quad if the price is close, no reason not to.

Windows runs significantly faster on a Quad; talk to anyone which has owned both. The only "Advantage" of a Duo is that they tend to be clocked slightly higher (3.16 instead of 3.0 for instance).
October 8, 2008 7:38:26 PM

If they get around the same performance NOW, which I've read benchmarks, they do, don't kid yourself.. Wouldn't a quad core be the better choice for in the future? You guys don't talk much about the future of gaming, just the now. To me that doesn't make much sense. I don't WANT to upgrade every 2 years.
a b à CPUs
October 8, 2008 7:47:14 PM

You've made up your mind, you're getting the Q6600 at 2.4 MHz, why beat the dead horse?
October 8, 2008 7:54:54 PM

For gaming only and the choice is between q6600 (2.4ghz) and e8500 (3.16)

No Brainer... e8500 FWT


If you had some extra cash i would take a Q9450/Q9550 over E8500
October 8, 2008 7:57:17 PM

The last time I upgraded my choice was between the E6750 or Q6600.
The ( over-all ) performance between the two at that time with an overclock was slightly in favor of the Q6600. Very slight and programs that would benifit a 4 core CPU were few. I chose the E6750 because the cost. If I made any upgrade at this point it would be to the Q9550 EO stepping. In your case that would be a $140.00 increase. Worth it over an E8500? In the long run I will have to say Yes!
October 8, 2008 8:00:46 PM

Also it's not only in gaming you have to think. Supposed you run two three aplications on your pc's, Quad would be better. I own a quad and I see a difference when I work on database and using editor and loading/transforming table wile listening to my music. It's make difference for me, and gaming when I have finished that d..job .
If you always do only one thing at a time and have only one disk to read or write the information,quad will not change a thing for you. For the game someone already point out the game are not ready, now, for quad.
a b à CPUs
October 9, 2008 6:40:58 AM

FHDelux said:
Obviously developers are trying to make use of the extra cores...

They most certainly are not. The gaming sector is the slowest in the software industry to progress. Quads have been out for a long time now, and only a handful of games show significant scaling from dual to quad. That should change, but I don't know when. My guess is we'll see 16/32 core CPUs as the gaming industry goes quad-core mainstream.
!