Core 2 duo vs Quad Core Help Please

zeriah

Distinguished
Jan 11, 2009
22
0
18,510
Hey I've been trying to do a lot of research before I buy my new laptop. I'm buying an Alienware laptop. I've done a lot of searching for different suggestions but I'm having the hardest time finding more information on what I will truly see as far as perfomance goes wether it be Gaming or Editing video whatever. Here are the choices I have for processors. I budget is to be around 3grand which would allow me to buy the Core 2 Quad Q9100, I see that the core 2 extreme x9100 is for the same price. I'm just looking for some basic suggestions and information regarding the differences I would notice. I plan on buying the Q9100 but will it be worth the extra money? Or should I just downgrade to the T9600 and save 350 bucks or to the T9400 and save 600 bucks... I'm willing to pay the money for that quad core but I'm just trying to justify it. All ive really come to conclusion with is that the Quad core will make editing video, and doing more things faster. I mainly play World of Warcraft, and I like mixing music and graphic design occasionally. I want this laptop to last me a while aswell. Especially if im dropping 3grand. Any information will be highly appreciated any information at all, your thoughts on what will be a noticable change between the processors. Here is the basic setup i have for the computer I have if interested, aside from the CPU. Dual HD 3850's 4gig DDR3 ram, vista 64. Bunch of other uneccary crap too lol. THANKS!

Intel® Core™2 P8400 2.26GHz (3MB Cache, 1066MHz FSB) [-$850]
Intel® Core™2 P8600 2.4GHz (3MB Cache, 1066MHz FSB) [-$750]
Intel® Core™2 T9400 2.53GHz (6MB Cache, 1066MHz FSB) [-$600]
Intel® Core™2 T9600 2.8GHz (6MB Cache, 1066MHz FSB) [-$350]
Intel® Core™2 Extreme X9100 3.06GHz (6MB Cache, 1066MHz FSB) [+$0]
Intel® Core™2 Quad Q9100 2.26GHz (12MB Cache, 1066MHz FSB)
 

zeriah

Distinguished
Jan 11, 2009
22
0
18,510
For those who click on my post and found it scary to read everything. The general question I had was which is better quad or core 2 duo? What performance diff will I see? Is it worth it?
 

Vos17

Distinguished
Jan 2, 2009
218
0
18,680
Get the quad core, if your video editing, it really does benefit from the multiple cores. If your on a tight budget tho, a 3.0 dual core is about 30-40 less than a 2.4 quad. Take your pick tho, in my opinion. you would benefit from a quad.

How come your getting a alienware? i always found cyberpowerinc. to be a better deal..
 

Zenthar

Distinguished
You have to consider that, in a perfect world, you could multiply the speed of the CPU by the # of cores to get a gross performance measure (the Q9100 would "only" be twice as good as the P8400). In the real world, only media encoding and "branch calculation" (like chess) can get close to that efficiency; for games, you get, at best, something like 20-25% (based on Supreme Commander, one of the most multi-core optimized game yet, E8400 vs QX9650 both 3GHz). So for games, fewer faster cores are still often better, but recent releases like GTA4 tend to make better uses of more cores.

However, you have to consider the price. For that reason, for laptops, I think the answer to "Is it worth it?" is very often "no", not matter what the question is :p. You would spend as much for the 3GHz upgrade as someone would probably spend for a whole E8400 gaming system ... and the later might perform better. Personally, I think you would have more for your $$$ if you would spend half the budget for your laptop, but change it after only 1.5 year.

Do you absolutely need a laptop?
 

zeriah

Distinguished
Jan 11, 2009
22
0
18,510
I'm going Alienware because I've always wanted one. They look so sexy and the features appeal to me. With that I just got a new job making about 3k every couple weeks, so I have the money to burn on a nice laptop. Money isnt much of an issue. But I want to save money on the CPU if getting a Quad core wont really benefit me. No point in spending an extra 850 bucks on something that wont make a difference. So I was just curious if I truly will notice the difference between a quad core or just getting the p8600 or something. I appreciate your information! will the quad just allow me to do more things at once and the things I do will move faster in general?
 

zeriah

Distinguished
Jan 11, 2009
22
0
18,510
Yes I need a laptop. My desktop is getting old, just running a prescott 3.4ghz cpu 512mb x1800xt 3gig ram. But things are lagging to **** now =(. I travel a lot now with my new job, so it will be convenient for me to raid and pvp on wow during those travel days. not to mention my area is almost done with the new Ymax stuff, so Internet will be available anywhere. I appreciate your information zenthar!
 

Zenthar

Distinguished
I had to ask because sometimes people don't realize what they are asking (no offense). For example, people would want a laptop for school, but also want to play game, so they will spend 2500$+ for a gaming laptop, but it would cost them less to buy a gaming desktop and an "office" laptop.

I think the P8600 is a good choice for the price.
 

zeriah

Distinguished
Jan 11, 2009
22
0
18,510
Right yea that totally makes sense. I would totally agree with you, but the situation im in, laptop would really benefit me =P. So I just dont understand Zenthar, forgetting about the price difference between the p8600 and the Q9100. What will be the main differences I will experience performance wise with those to chips? Will one just allow me to run photoshop and all the uncessary crap in the backround while playing an intense game? Or will one improve the gaming performance more than the other? Not to mention thing of its life. Wouldnt a Quad core last me a longer time before my next upgrade period? I guess im still just mainly confused on what is the true difference between the two, not so much which on is a better bang for my buck.
 

Zenthar

Distinguished
Some games will benefit from more cores, but right now, very few do. The best know ones are GTA4 and Supreme Commander (compare E8400 with Q9650 for 2 vs 4 same-clocked cores and E8400 vs Q6600 for something close to the 2 priciest laptop processors you were considering). You will notice that they both get a big boost from 2 additional cores, but the clock difference is just too big for it to matter in gaming. For games like Crysis which aren't that much optimized for multiple cores, adding 2 additional cores will have no direct impact at all.
 

zeriah

Distinguished
Jan 11, 2009
22
0
18,510
Interesting. Now somebody was talking to me about that quad core have a slightly lower speed will cause the 2 hd 3870's to bottleneck. Is this true? I find it hard to believe that a quad core will bottleneck 2 video cards. But prove me wrong, or please explain what he was probably thinking of or incorrect about. You are very helpful Zenthar! thank you so much!
 

pasoleatis

Distinguished
Jan 21, 2008
42
0
18,530
Hello,

I am not sure what are the prices now for the laptop quads, but I think that the price difference is exagerated unless there is a specific need for the quad. From the prices you mentioned the T9400 or the T9600 seem to be better option than the extreme processsor or the quad. Unless you need the quad for some speific task the T9400 is the winner.
I guess.

PL
 

zeriah

Distinguished
Jan 11, 2009
22
0
18,510
There are 2 mobile CPU quads. The Q9100 & the QX9300 Extreme. Assuming I went with the T9400 the Q9100 (the quad im interested in buying) would be an additional $600. You saying unless i need the quad for a specific task still doesnt help my situation and my question still partially stands. Is the true power of the Quad core only proven through running multiple tasks at once? Or will the Quad core improve performance overall? through specific tasks. If this is the case, What differences would I see performance wise, between the core 2 duo's wether it be I buy one of the T series chips, or a P series. What tasks performance wise would I see?

I like mixing music, graphic design, and gaming. Would I quad core allow me to do all at once if I wanted to with high performance? while one of the core 2 duo's would allow me to run one of those programs at a high performance the quad would put out for multiple tasks at once?

I guess im still partially confused what would change? What are the pro's to owning a quad core/what are the cons? What would be the pros (if any) to owning a Core 2 duo OVER a quad, and vice versa, what would be the pros to owning a Quad over a core 2 duo. Does one do certain things better than the other? Single task perfomance etc.

Regardless of price I'm just trying to understand the true differences between the two, So I have a better understanding of the Quad. If somebody comes up to me in a coffee shop and asks me about my laptop and asks, why did I go quad? I dont want to say cause it has a Quad sounds fast lol.

One more question I would like to repeat so it doesnt go unnoticed. I got a reply from somebody on another forum that the quad core im interested in Intel® Core™2 Quad Q9100 2.26GHz (12MB Cache, 1066MHz FSB) would bottleneck the dual video cards Dual 512MB ATI Mobility Radeon™ HD 3870's. Is this true? Would it really do that? Im finding it hard to believe that such a cpu, would have such an effect on those 2 video cards.

Thank you all for reading my questions and any information at all is highly appreciated!
 

killz86

Distinguished
Dec 8, 2005
403
0
18,780
i have been reading this and i have came up with a idea. i would recommand a custom notebook over Alienware. with a custom notebook you can change the gpu/cpu/hhd/mem and get a better computer out of it. here is the notebook i found for around $3,000 give or take and it has better options to it.

here are the spec's i am just trying to help you get better bang for your dollar.

Model: SAGER NP9262
Lcd: 17" WSXGA+ "Glare Type" Super Clear Ultra Bright Glossy Screen (1680x1050)
Cpu: Intel Core 2 QUAD Q9550 2.83GHz w/ 12MB L2 Cache - 1333MHz FSB
Video:nVidia GeForce 9800M GTX 1,024MB PCI-Express DDR3 DX10 (User Upgradeable)
Mem:4,096MB DDR2 800 (2 SODIMMS) Dual Channel Memory
Drive:Combo 8x8x6x4x Dual Layer DVD +/-R/RW 5x DVD-RAM 24x CD-R/RW Drive w/Softwares
Hdd 1st 250GB 7200RPM (Serial-ATA II 300) 2nd 250GB 7200RPM (Serial-ATA II 300)
7-1 card reader/Bluetooth/Wifi Wireless N/Bulit-in camera
Laptop bage Basic Black Business Case - Included
Battery Smart Li-ion Battery (12 Cell)
O.S Windows Vista Home Premium 64-Bit Installed (64&32-Bit CD Included)

Warrteny 3 Year Parts/Labor Warranty 24/7 Tech Support w/ LCD Accidental Damage Protection

Total 3131.16

you get eveything you want for around the same price but more. because you can upgrade alot. the socket would be 775 so you can put any socket 775 cpu in there

here is the link to the laptop if you wanna check it out http://www.xoticpc.com/sager-np9262-ultimate-custom-laptop-built-clevo-d901c-p-2273.html?wconfigure=yes

but if i would have to choose on that laptop i would say the Q9100

Just my 2 cents
 

zeriah

Distinguished
Jan 11, 2009
22
0
18,510
Thank you so much for taking the time to do that research and put together a computer similar to the specs im interested in! I appreciate your time!
 

cadder

Distinguished
Nov 17, 2008
1,711
1
19,865
This has not been addressed yet, but a laptop implies portability, and maybe a need for use with battery power. The quad will suck down the battery pretty fast, the faster T____'s will also. The P____ processors can be pretty fast and still be efficient with battery power. If you are going to take the laptop somewhere and plug it into the wall, then maybe the quad would be fine.

Besides battery life, you should consider the apps that you intend to run. Take a list of your primary apps and find out which ones will make use of multiple cores. Most apps will be fine with a dual core, and probably prefer a higher clock speed dual core, but a few apps do utilize a quad, including some video editing apps.

I needed a fast laptop to run CAD apps when I travel, but I use it frequently on battery power alone so I was sensitive to that. I bought a Dell with P9500 CPU, 2.53GHz. I just got a new desktop workstation at work with E8500 CPU, delivered at stock processor speed. The laptop can hold its own against the desktop, less than 20% slower, and still gets over 3 hours battery life. I oc'd the desktop to 3.8GHz so it's a little faster than that now.
 

Zenthar

Distinguished
I'd like to point-out that killz86's build would really be awesome and give you much more bang for your bucks. The Q9550 is an amazing CPU, I'm personally waiting for a little price-drop to get one over my E8400. Moreover, the fact that many components are user-upgradable greatly improves the life of the system specially when gaming.

To come back to the dual vs quad impact, there is no easy answer, you have to understand a bit about programming and internal CPU work to really understand. Hopefully, there is the wonderful world of analogies :p. Have you ever looked at an MS Project Gantt chart? That is exactly how a program should be seen ... as a project with multiple tasks needed to be done, some with dependencies and a limited number of people (cores) to do the job. Now imagine multiple projects (programs) being done in the same office by the same limited number of people. Some projects are divided into tasks that can only be done sequentially, adding more people won't change a thing. Some other projects consist of completely independent tasks (ex: evaluating the validity of 4 different sub-contractor proposal for a building) that could be done by numerous people simultaneously. And finally many projects are a mix of the 2; some task need to be done before the bulk of the people can start working on it.

In your case, the comparison isn't even than simple because you are comparing a 2.24GHz quad to a 3.06GHz dual; it's like comparing a Ford F-350 to a Mustang. How much time will each one get you from point A to point B depends on the road and how much weight you are pulling.

Most people with a Quad describe their experience as "much smoother", if something runs in the background, there is much less impact on what they are doing (much like adding weight to a F-350 doesn't impact the speed as much). If you want to encode media WHILE playing game, then the Quad is preferable; some application might be slower, but you can run more of them without impact. Moreover, if the way your encoding software works benefit much from the Quad, it will even run faster if you don't do anything else. If you are the kind of guy to do a single thing at once (like me), then a faster dual-core might give you better overall results since many applications (and games) still benefit more from fewer faster cores.

Summary
========
X9100 Pros:
■Faster cores = generally better gaming/application performance.
X9100 cons:
■Will loose much performance if heavy multitasking (ex: encoding while playing games).

Q9100 Pros:
■Great for heavy multitasking (ex: encoding while playing games).
Q9100 cons:
■Slower with applications that do not benefit from multiple cores.
■Slower if doing only 1 thing or light multitasking (ex: word + excel + Web).
 

killz86

Distinguished
Dec 8, 2005
403
0
18,780
i will keep a eye on this thread and see where it goes. and if you need help just pm me i will glady help out. all i need to know is your budget you want and i can see what kind of custom laptops i can come across on the web
 

zeriah

Distinguished
Jan 11, 2009
22
0
18,510
This was very very helpful! I just have one more quick question to confirm I understand what your saying is correct. Basically the x9100 has a higher clock speed 3.06GHz. There Q9100 has a clock of 2.26GHz. So basically When it comes to single applications the x9100 will be faster than the Q9100. Not so much that the Q9100 will be slow or programs will lag, but just talking about straight perfomance the x9100 will be better because of its speed. But when it comes to multiple applications the Q9100 would be the better option because simply thats whats it is built for.

Just wanted to clarify with the cons you stated for the Q9100. There both fast processors and would suit me well either way just the x9100 is better for single applications and the q9100 is still good for single applications but also better for multiple applications.

Thanks again to anybody who took the time to reply and read through all of this. I truly appreciate it!
 

zeriah

Distinguished
Jan 11, 2009
22
0
18,510
In response to your post Killz, my budget is around 3grand. I already had my eyes on my AW laptop ive wanted. I mainly just wanted to know the main differences between the processors and if Quad core could be justified.
 

Zenthar

Distinguished
The Q9100 will be faster for both multi-application or highly multi-threaded single-applications (like some media encoding software).

And sorry to come back to that, but you should consider killz86's build very carefully. At 2.83GHz, the Q9550 will give you nearly the same performance (no more than 8% performance drop) as the X9100 in a single single-threaded application, but up to 26% more in high multi-tasking (or highly multi-threaded applications) than the Q9100. Look at this comparison(http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-q3-2008/compare,836.html?prod[2181]=on&prod[2185]=on) (the E8400 @ 3GHz being as close as I could find to the X9100 @ 3.06GHz), the Q9550 equals or beats the E8400 is all tests. You would have the best of both worlds and, with a user-upgradeable GPU, could perform well for gaming for a while with minimal $$$ input.
 
The Q9550 has a problem though. It is a desktop quad, and by itself can take more power than most entire laptops. This means that battery life will be next to nothing. Unless the computer will never be used on battery, it really isn't the choice to make IMHO.
 

killz86

Distinguished
Dec 8, 2005
403
0
18,780
the Q9550 on stock is 95watt's. if you want to get the AW get it but i would still you look over a custom notebook over a AW they over priced compared to a custom notebook.

that notebook i gave the specs are just like a custom desktop but its a laptop. but if you want the AW then get the Q9100 but sorry ot say this again but i would get a custom notebook over a prebuilt one. because it will have more options then a prebuilit notebook

also you could put a GTX260 in the SAGER. if you dont belive me look up a forum called notebookreview.com they are all about laptops. i have a fujitsu N6470 but i perfer custom computers over Prebuilit laptop or desktop. but thats my personal option. but if you want the AW get it its your money not mine
 

zeriah

Distinguished
Jan 11, 2009
22
0
18,510
This is my first Laptop. What your saying makes total sense, I didnt really think the customization was available like that. I never followed up on laptops until now. I've built 3 desktops for the reason alone that places like Dell or something doesnt have what I know I can really get for the price I would be paying. Or what I would like to see my desktop have. I just wasnt aware that the customization was there for laptops like that. I have been looking at the specs on your build I like what I see, def giving it consideration. :)
 

95 watts is too much. Typical notebooks draw less than 65 watts in total, for everything.

I agree that Alienware is overpriced, but I would stick with a notebook made with notebook components, not desktop components.