Do I really need a Quad?

Hi All. I know this question has been asked a ton, but I'm going to throw my situation out there for all of your comments. I'm updating my old Athlon 64 4200 system (about time right?!?), and I'm trying to decide whether to go with a dual core (6400 3.2 ghz) or jump straight to the new Phenom II (940 3.0 ghz) quad core. I definitely understand that there are not a ton of applications that make use of all four cores in the quad, however I'm looking ahead and thinking of the longevity of the system. I use my pc for the following:

1) office apps, email, web browsing, etc. General household multi-tasking and wasting time (like 4-5 things running at once)
2) family photo and video editing (photoshop & premiere elements 7, NIKON picture project and NIKON Capture NX)
3) Some computer gaming, but nothing heavy. (mainly FPS type games)

Thanks for any and all suggestions!

go with the phenom 2. AMD dual cores suck.

btw: Q6600 sucks compared to the p2! hello!

actually, it's a 3200, single core, socket 939. definitely time for an upgrade!

Seeing your usage I'd say you'll benefit a lot more getting a dual and investing the extra money in more RAM and a 64 bit OS.

IMO quads are needed only for heavy video/audio encoding or, as AMD put it, megatasking.

Then again, with more and more developers out there optimizing for multi-threading, a quad core would give more longevity to his system. A quad may be $50 more expensive, but would likely add 3-4 years to the usable lifespan of the computer, as a quad has twice the potential output of a dual core.

Get the new phenom II 920 or 940 if you have the money. Currently for $225(PII 940) is probably the best deal as you can get a 790GX MB for $100 bucks.

Also I dont think you should wait for the AM3. It will probably be not worth it the benefit you will get from DDR3 (and its more expensive)

If you ask me, get 4GB ddr2 with 790GX MB and 940 phenom (as somebody pointed there are great combo deals on newegg slashing up to $40 bucks)

I promise you you will be delighted of the new Phenom

Dont get dual core and dont listen to guys that tell you its sufficient, because its not

As I see you are from the ones that upgrade on long periods (2-3-4 years). Even now I will take a quad at 2.8GHz instead of dual core at 3.13 Ghz right away. Its not worthed, and in the future the quads will prevail, so in your case you wont make a mistake if you go quad. Believe me you will need it

Maybe you think gain.... boxed Q6600's are 159.99

if you don't want to get the Q6600 you could also consider the Q9550. Now that is no compitition for the Phenom 2.

the Q6600 woukd be the best value for over clockers with a tight budget

I know there is one game out already that recommends a quad core and that is GTA4

oh man! you AMD fanboys are scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to trying to defend the P2 as the best choice cause it will save you a a few cents in power consumption LOL. newegg is offering free shipping on both. like what is being said the Q6600 is better overclocker than the AMD P2 and is obviously cheaper so save that $9.00 and put it towards a better GPU or mobo for you new PC

Plain answer is this: Quad Core processors are the direction things are going. They'll perform nearly as well as the high end Dual-Cores right now, and will definitely outperform them later on.

Games are beginning to pick up the multi-core wagon. GTA IV for instance, is said to run much smoother on quad cores, and they apparently recommend quad core processors for GTA IV (Rockstar the game maker that is).

Quad Core will also gain performance increases with your photo/video editing software as well. Plus, you won't have to upgrade quite as soon if you go quad (assuming you buy a decent quad).

Thanks all for the great feedback so far. I love that all these types of posts turn in an AMD versus Intel argument. I would say that I would prefer to buy AMD. I guess it's the whole, "Help the little guy" mentality.

That being said, I truly have no issue switching to Intel if the price/performance is right. I pretty much plan to build a brand new system from the ground up rather than keep the 939 set-up I have now. So I will need a new MB and such anyways.

jerreece,

Thank You!

As you, blackpanther26, and I noted a Quad Core system will improve/speed up the OP's video editing.

Hopefully we'll see software developers write more programs that make use of quad core multi-threading capabilities. It seems like the software developers are always trying to catch up to hardware improvements.

Oh enough **** - AMD's greatest agains Intel's worst bla bla.
Who cares, you pay some money and get product. They PRICED it that way because its only so fast. If it was whiping the floor with Intels it would have been priced probably $1000

Clock for clock the Q6600 is faster, however PII920 is little faster on stock speed than Q6600 stock. And is priced about the same.

(to compukid : show me a link for Q6600 boxed for 159.99)

Also AMD Did drop the prices so its not temporary, it was an answer to Intel dropping their prices because of the PII. So PII showing is good thing for all (getting better processors for less money)

PII overclocks well too you know, so if you would clock the Q6600 you can same way clock the PII. I would guess that if you want to clock the Q6600 to 3.6GHz you will need high quality MB and after market cooler , while you can probably achieve 3.6 on the PII with only some aftermarket cooler, and any MB (as its with unlocked multiplier)

So I guess they are equal, people can buy whatever they prefer.

LoL @ kicks the piss, you think a few points here and there is an ass kicking. I already compared the cores up above so why compare two chips that aren't built the same in terms of energy consumption. We already determined those differences.

All I said is that the Q6600 being ooooh about what 2 YEARS OLD !!!! still holds it own vs the BRND NEW P2 !!!!

Enough said.


Link for a $159.00 Q6600
http://www.microcenter.com/single_ [...] id=0298863

what does 'boxed' mean anyway?

If you plan to overclock, even a little bit the Q6600 is VASTLY better than the Phenom 2. The Ph2 920 struggles to hit 3.2 Ghz, which some Q6600s can hit at stock voltage. The Ph2 940 struggles to get past 3.6 Ghz and both of them require large increases in voltage meaning they are as hot if not hotter than the Q6600 overclocked. Add that to the fact that the Q6600 is a good deal FASTER CLOCK FOR CLOCK, then tell me one REAL reason that anyone planing to overclock should even touch a Ph2? Nevermind, don't give me your lame excuse.

To the OP, the Q6600 is much better if you are overclocking even a little bit, and that is an established fact. Even at stock the Ph2 920 barely can compete.

what 'facts'? where are ur numbers? p2 struggles to hit 3.2? that is just laughable you intel fanboy.

Ohh... you are confused! lol we are talking about the phenom TWO. it just came out, sorry if you didnt hear.

Check out post No.7 http://www.xtremesystems.org/forum [...] p?t=215427
It shows a whole 40 watts to go to 3.6
@ the OP, if youre interested in AM3, Id wait, as numbers are just coming in for them
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forum [...] p?t=215454

From what I have seen reviews on the DDR3 version of the Phenom II gives it about a 5% speed boost. I am not sure if that 5% increase in speed could justify the premium price you will pay for DDR3 ram. Especially as DIRT cheap as DDR2 is right now. A 5% increase in speed for about 2.4 times the price. The increase in the price is more than the DDR2 itself.

DDR2 Gskill $39 vs DDR3 Gskill $95

I like the blocked out voltage in CPUZ...

Read Anands article, the ONLY decent showing by the way. They said those prerelease chips arent the ones people are buying now in their article, so again, read the article. Why no Mad Shrimps reference? Why disregard what Anand says while using his findings as well? Did you read it?

Here :
"AMD has proven in early demonstrations that the Phenom II x4 will offer overclocking headroom similar to the Penryn series. Early production sample processors have clocked anywhere from 3.9GHz on air to 4.4GHz on water and all the way up to 6.3GHz on LN2. We have matched their results on air-cooling and been impressed with the potential headroom offered by the new 45nm manufacturing process on extreme cooling setups. In fact, the latest retail steppings that AMD displayed this past week showed significant improvements in overclocking headroom compared to the press samples we utilized. Our 940 topped out at 3.9GHz, which is not bad, but after reviewing AMD’s results and seeing some early retail numbers on the forums, the expectation level for air-cooling is now set to the 4.1GHz range with the 920 hitting 3.8~3.9GHz on the right motherboard"
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipse [...] =3492&p=10

So, this kinda shoots the crap out of low ocing on 920s, that reviewers got the best chips, and knew what they were doing, and that forums dont matter, when it us that do what we do. Those "pros" didnt bother to tweak these chips, and yes, it shows. Just because of some reviewers laziness, we shouldnt be sheep and not recognize it, as Amamd proves, as hes 1 of a few thats reliable today.
Im not posting this against anyone, but more to show the lack of enthusiasm these cpus have gotten from many a site, and we as enthusiasts, shouldnt settle for this lack . Theres more knowledge at ES than all those "sites" youve posted, and its showing up, day to day, and ONLY Anand had the rocks to admit it, and tell the whole story, about the early chips the reviewers received, because he actually did his homework, and obviously isnt lazy either, by showing P2s capabilities as being waaay faster than these other "professional" sites

You all need to relax. Both the P2 and Q series are enough for his PC and both will be fine. You are all trying to justify the BEST possible answer when in reality he probably wont see any more than a 15% difference, and that is just on the video editing...

To OP: Pick the CPU you feel most comfortable with and DO NOT OVERCLOCK IT.

To everyone else, let this thread die and go back to your fanboy lives!

To those who are practical and reasonable like me, kudos.

There it is over.

Quad's are more future proof and the extra cost is insignificant for most. Q9400 or P2 would be your best choice today for budget quad. I7 is your best choice for mid-range quad. And I recommend 4GB DDR2-800 memory and Vista 64 for all of the above.

Last year, blue ray format seemed ready to explode when the war ended but we all still get along fine with our standard format players and DVD drives. Same with the quad/duo debate. Duos will be fine for 3 more years. But it wont be long before both blu-ray format and quad cpu's reach their full potentials. Where you position your desktop in all of this is a personal choice.