Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Some Insight over the Quad vs Dual debate (Gaming-wise)

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 25, 2009 4:00:05 AM

Hello everyone. I've decided to post this because we still see some debate going over whether to get a Quad or a Duo. So, (hopefully) this will be helpful to some people wondering about which CPU to go with. Plus, this is generaly towards Intel CPUs, but with AMD, the scenario shouldn't be much different.

Of all the posts from various forums around the web, I've never seen anyone focusing one of the most important factors of CPU perfomance, and it's a rather simple point most people fail to realise:

- CPU architecture. Plain and simple.

But first things first:

I would like to start with some points. First of all, Duos and Quads have slightly different purposes: multitasking level. Depending on what you do, a Duo or a Quad will better suit your needs. Still, bear in mind that nothing stops a Duo from being a decent performer even in heavy multitasking.


Most people nowadays seem to completely ignore Core 2 Duo for no reason. Yes, it's pretty good for you that you have a Quad, but from my experience, I had the choice to go Quad 2 months back when I built my current computer, but I decided to go with the E8400. And I don't regret it any way. Why, you may ask. Because I just game.

But, IF you want to game while rendering stuff, converting movies or any other demanding tasks, of course a Quad will be better, because it's extra cores will get to the tasks on hand. But this difference does not apply in such a linear fashion when it comes to gaming.
there's only a significant increase in productivity if you MULTITASK HEAVILY. Most of us just want to play the game. Duos and Quads have slightly different purposes, and it's all about multitasking. A Quad doesn't bring a significant benefit over anything else.

So, all in all a Quad is only useful if you do heavy ammounts of multitasking, otherwise, if you just game, like me, a solid dual core will get you through all the gaming needs in the next 2-3 years, or even further.

Now, let's focus on gaming.

Another thing I believe is important to mention is that multithreaded games won't spawn a defined set/number threads. This means that a game won't spawn 2, 4 or 8 threads right of the box, multithreading is mostly all about scalability, so if a game detects a dual core, it will spawn 2 threads, a Quad it will spawn 4 threads, and so on.

Another common misconception is that a Quad will automatically bring double the performance that of a Duo. Like I said, when it comes to games, this isn't true. And it's rather simple why: because games will never be 100% CPU dependant.

Take a look at this GTA 4 benchmark: http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,669595/Reviews/GTA_4...

What we have in that benchmark is an E8400 getting 28 FPs and a Quad Extreme (QX) getting 38. There's obviously a difference, but take a look at the numbers: Plus, what you see here is the QX getting 38FPS OVERCLOCKED, and the E8400 gets 28 @ stock speeds. As we can see, Quads are nowhere near double the perfomance of a fast Dual core. And a fast, solid Duo can go past 4ghz easily, don't forget that. There's nothing to warrant getting a Quad core over a dual for gaming, even in a game as CPU intensive as GTA 4.

Let's go back to the initial technical aspect that is always neglected: Architecture.

Don't forget that CPU architecture is also a major factor in performance, and you also seem to neglect that s775 (core 2) quads are nothing more than 2 Duos glued together, so when Core 2 Duo starts to suck for gaming, you can expect your beloved Quads to suck as well. No other way around.

Go Quad if you want to, but you should never expect your Quad to significantly outlast a Duo in games, because it most likely won't.

But don't worry, Core 2 architecture (Duo or Quad) will still be a viable option for games for a few years to come. Get a Duo, get a Quad, it will make no difference when the technology behind these CPUs is not sufficient.

I hope this really helps some people deciding on which CPU to get. Just don't buy into the Quad hype just for the sake of it. There's nothing wrong with having a fast Duo if you game. Plus, like said previously, they are even more than decent performers on moderate/heavy multitasking.
January 25, 2009 7:57:49 AM

Duo's are very good cpu's and they will do everything just fine now but see there is a monster on the horizon and that monster is quad. Quad is about as fast as a duo and overclock's just as well too and one might not even notice the difference between the two. But quad has something the duo doesnt that will ultimately lead to it's success and that is raw computational power becuase even though the duo work's just as fine the developer's are starting to realize they can do much much more with the quad becuase it has almost double the computing power of an equal duo.

You take that duo and compare it with a simulare quad and convert a 1.5gig dvd to hd with an output of about 8gigs and you will see what stupendious advantage a quad has. all developers need to do is code for multi threaded program's and that duo will leave you wanting more.

This same thing happened with people when dual cores came out most people argued until the last second about how dual's were not nessesary but then more and more programs were coded for it and soon single cores went the way of web surfing machines.
a b à CPUs
January 25, 2009 8:48:33 AM

ummmmmmm GTA IV - http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,672004/Reviews/GTA_4...

E8600 (3.33ghz) vs Q9550 (2.83ghz) - the minimum result of the quad beats the maximum of the dual, and the i7 (8 threads) @ 2.66ghz beats them all.


Quads are here, there cheap and fast and future capable - dual cores are finnished END OF STORY.
Related resources
January 25, 2009 10:38:14 AM

the reason the quad vs dual is dead is the new i7 is quad only - i trust intels wisdom. intel does not do stupid marketing tricks like amd

next is you rarely loose from a quad, yes you can get a few more ghz on a dual core to due limits of the total wattage but its pretty insignificant.

<+++ run your i7 at 4ghz! remember my rule!

i tell people to get quads all the time but the reality is i run both my main systems are dual - 3.4ghz e6750 and 3.8ghz E8500, later is a shuttle and first is micro atx both run raid0 and the micro box has a third drive and raptor raid

keep in mind i ran my northwood 3.0c at 3.6ghz until 2 years ago - until it died it ran 24/7 for 3-4 years

i have quads but they a big gaming units with water cooling or an i7 air cooled - i let my underlings game them when they are not packing boxes, screwing screws etc.

thats my take!

go with quad but a dual is fine if its a good 3.4plus intel - or even amd
January 25, 2009 10:41:32 AM

xx12amanxx said:
Duo's are very good cpu's and they will do everything just fine now but see there is a monster on the horizon and that monster is quad. Quad is about as fast as a duo and overclock's just as well too and one might not even notice the difference between the two. But quad has something the duo doesnt that will ultimately lead to it's success and that is raw computational power becuase even though the duo work's just as fine the developer's are starting to realize they can do much much more with the quad becuase it has almost double the computing power of an equal duo.

You take that duo and compare it with a simulare quad and convert a 1.5gig dvd to hd with an output of about 8gigs and you will see what stupendious advantage a quad has. all developers need to do is code for multi threaded program's and that duo will leave you wanting more.

This same thing happened with people when dual cores came out most people argued until the last second about how dual's were not nessesary but then more and more programs were coded for it and soon single cores went the way of web surfing machines.



spend a day with a 4ghz i7 system you will be greatly inpressed!

but good points
January 25, 2009 11:08:50 AM

Quads are oriented more for WORK and for ultimate EXTREME gamers who can plunk down $750 plus for the extreme cores.

Gamers are also OVER CLOCKERS. Stock just doesn't cut it. and quite frankly if I am gaming there is no way I'm going to be video editing while doing so with that being said until games utilize 4 cores instead of for the most part 2 cores I will stick with a dual core running at 4.2 ghz cool and stable versus a quad pushed to the hilt running at 3.6 ghz making the whole machine a furnace inside.

I air cool (cheaper) so temp is a concern as the lower the temps the slower my fans need to be cycled and the slower they are the less chance I have of hearing them.

2 years from now when my gaming machine gets recycled into my everyday workhorse the dual core will be removed for an economical quad core most likely second hand and dirt cheap.

Better to invest all of your money in the foundation...Motherboard chipset and ram (DDR3) don't invest in dead end technology.

Sure the I7 is great but in my last build the cost of the mother board cpu and a fast matched set of triple ram (gaming grade) was more then triple what a E8400 build came to using DDR3. Better to invest the extra money in dual HD 4870 video cards.
January 25, 2009 1:32:09 PM

People... Like someone said earlier, Quads, whether they are Core or i7, are obviously targeted at heavy multitasking work. They, are meant to increase productivity in a heavy work environment.

Plus, I NEVER denied that Quads were better in multitasking. Hell, I even acknowledged it in my initial post!

This is about GAMING people, can't you read damn thread titles?

Of course a Quad will yield almost the double the performance of a Duo in 100% CPU dependant applications/tasks. (WinRAR, Video enconding, 3D rendering, etc)

But games will NEVER be 100% CPU dependant. And if you search the web a little, you will se that the tendency is that games will become multithreaded by using the GPU for different things. NvidiaPhysx is just an example. Search a bit more, and you'll find that Nvidia is also expecting to include AI processing into GPUs in the near future. So be ready... multithreaded games are coming... But GPU will be way more relevant in the future.
January 25, 2009 1:37:55 PM

nightsilencer said:
Hello everyone. I've decided to post this because we still see some debate going over whether to get a Quad or a Duo. So, (hopefully) this will be helpful to some people wondering about which CPU to go with. Plus, this is generaly towards Intel CPUs, but with AMD, the scenario shouldn't be much different.

Of all the posts from various forums around the web, I've never seen anyone focusing one of the most important factors of CPU perfomance, and it's a rather simple point most people fail to realise:

- CPU architecture. Plain and simple.

Arhm? I'm guessing it's because they are all x86 compatible?

nightsilencer said:


But first things first:

I would like to start with some points. First of all, Duos and Quads have slightly different purposes: multitasking level. Depending on what you do, a Duo or a Quad will better suit your needs. Still, bear in mind that nothing stops a Duo from being a decent performer even in heavy multitasking.

You say they have two different purposes, but only mention one?

nightsilencer said:

Most people nowadays seem to completely ignore Core 2 Duo for no reason. Yes, it's pretty good for you that you have a Quad, but from my experience, I had the choice to go Quad 2 months back when I built my current computer, but I decided to go with the E8400. And I don't regret it any way. Why, you may ask. Because I just game.

And your proof is some "personal experience". Everybody knows that people are biased towards their own hardware.
nightsilencer said:

But, IF you want to game while rendering stuff, converting movies or any other demanding tasks, of course a Quad will be better, because it's extra cores will get to the tasks on hand. But this difference does not apply in such a linear fashion when it comes to gaming.

there's only a significant increase in productivity if you MULTITASK HEAVILY. Most of us just want to play the game. Duos and Quads have slightly different purposes, and it's all about multitasking. A Quad doesn't bring a significant benefit over anything else.
So, all in all a Quad is only useful if you do heavy ammounts of multitasking, otherwise, if you just game, like me, a solid dual core will get you through all the gaming needs in the next 2-3 years, or even further.

You can see a large increase with quads running just one multithreaded task. You do not have to run multiple tasks.
nightsilencer said:

Now, let's focus on gaming.

I thought you already did that?

nightsilencer said:

Another thing I believe is important to mention is that multithreaded games won't spawn a defined set/number threads. This means that a game won't spawn 2, 4 or 8 threads right of the box, multithreading is mostly all about scalability, so if a game detects a dual core, it will spawn 2 threads, a Quad it will spawn 4 threads, and so on.

Now you're just BSing. How a game handles multithreading is completely game dependent. Some have a defined set of threads, some make them dynamically as needed throughout the game and I wont rule out some games have threads according to cores(up to some limit, like 4), but it is certainly not the majority.
Also, you don't seem to understand the meaning of the word 'scalability'.

nightsilencer said:

Another common misconception is that a Quad will automatically bring double the performance that of a Duo. Like I said, when it comes to games, this isn't true. And it's rather simple why: because games will never be 100% CPU dependant.


I doubt you'll find even one post on this forum of someone thinking he/she'll double the framerate going from duo to quad. Claiming it is a 'common misconception' is more BSing.
nightsilencer said:

Take a look at this GTA 4 benchmark: http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,669595/Reviews/GTA_4...

What we have in that benchmark is an E8400 getting 28 FPs and a Quad Extreme (QX) getting 38. There's obviously a difference, but take a look at the numbers: Plus, what you see here is the QX getting 38FPS OVERCLOCKED, and the E8400 gets 28 @ stock speeds. As we can see, Quads are nowhere near double the perfomance of a fast Dual core. And a fast, solid Duo can go past 4ghz easily, don't forget that. There's nothing to warrant getting a Quad core over a dual for gaming, even in a game as CPU intensive as GTA 4.

As I said, nobody claimed it would double, but you agree the quad is better?
nightsilencer said:

Let's go back to the initial technical aspect that is always neglected: Architecture.

Don't forget that CPU architecture is also a major factor in performance, and you also seem to neglect that s775 (core 2) quads are nothing more than 2 Duos glued together, so when Core 2 Duo starts to suck for gaming, you can expect your beloved Quads to suck as well. No other way around.

You've got serious deficiencies in your ability to make logical conclusions. "Because 2 'core 2' cores is not enough, 4 'core 2' cores will not be enough either"? I'm sorry, but the former simply does not imply the latter.

nightsilencer said:

Go Quad if you want to, but you should never expect your Quad to significantly outlast a Duo in games, because it most likely won't.

But don't worry, Core 2 architecture (Duo or Quad) will still be a viable option for games for a few years to come. Get a Duo, get a Quad, it will make no difference when the technology behind these CPUs is not sufficient.

I hope this really helps some people deciding on which CPU to get. Just don't buy into the Quad hype just for the sake of it. There's nothing wrong with having a fast Duo if you game. Plus, like said previously, they are even more than decent performers on moderate/heavy multitasking.

Ah, the BSing is over.

January 25, 2009 3:10:37 PM

Wow this is getting really annoying and pathetic! All these people with dualcores have to make themselves feel better by bashing quads because they did not buy a quad at the same price. Honestly, why do people keep trying this same old BS?

Quads have the advantage that:

1) They have much great raw computational power, meaning they bottleneck high end multiple GPUs less, meaning they will bottleneck future mainstream cards less.

2) Games will be 4+ thread optimized, and soon. This means that the games will be able to offload the more urgent processes to the CPU more which means more minimum framerates. If you don't think games will be optimized soon then tell me how many games use dualcores? Yeah thats right, ALL OF SEMI RECENT TITLES.

3) Even the best maintained systems still must run other processes behind the games. This, as like most things, increases with time meaning that there will be more and more for the CPU to run besides the game. With the extra cores a quad will handle this much, much better.

Now we come to the most common argument and it is purely ridiculous, heat. Yes quads produce more heat than duals. However, both are handles by stock cooling at stock clocks. When overclocking comes into the picture we have great cpu coolers such as the Xigmatek HDT-s1283, the TRUE, and the Sunbeam core contact cooler. All of these can be had for a reasonable price and all of these can overclock both duals and quads to their reasonable limits.

Not only this, but for gaming the Ghz stops being a factor at about 3.4-3.6 Ghz which all Intel quads can hit. This means that for gaming your higher overclocking duals don't make a difference. The only time high clocks make a difference is in strenuous activities such as encoding or converting videos, which quads have native advantage in even at much lower clock speeds.

So please please please please please actually read this and not just ignore it so that you can actually know what you are talking about. The time of the Dualcore is dead and the only time a dualcore is even worth considering over a quadcore for new systems in the sub $100 category.
January 25, 2009 3:20:01 PM

we should catalog all the games that benefit from the quads. that shouldn't take but a minute. :) 

out of seriousness, i am sure there will be enough bad console ports in the future to necessitate a quad for gaming. they have delivered us only a few but i am sure that number will skyrocket. definitely don't expect the majority of game developers to spend the extra money on their cookie cutter game titles to invest in optimizing the game for multi-cores. it may happen by accident but game companies for the most part crap all over PC gamers. they will do whatever takes the least amount of time to get it in the shiny box with fancy artwork for us to buy at 50 bucks a pop and could care less if your quad gets to stretch its legs.
January 25, 2009 8:09:33 PM

Raven excellent post. I do have a question regarding it, don't mean it to be a noob question though. With what you are referring to does that encompass all "quads" or just native quad cpus?
January 25, 2009 8:23:40 PM

The_Blood_Raven said:
Wow this is getting really annoying and pathetic! All these people with dualcores have to make themselves feel better by bashing quads because they did not buy a quad at the same price. Honestly, why do people keep trying this same old BS?

Quads have the advantage that:

1) They have much great raw computational power, meaning they bottleneck high end multiple GPUs less, meaning they will bottleneck future mainstream cards less.

2) Games will be 4+ thread optimized, and soon. This means that the games will be able to offload the more urgent processes to the CPU more which means more minimum framerates. If you don't think games will be optimized soon then tell me how many games use dualcores? Yeah thats right, ALL OF SEMI RECENT TITLES.

3) Even the best maintained systems still must run other processes behind the games. This, as like most things, increases with time meaning that there will be more and more for the CPU to run besides the game. With the extra cores a quad will handle this much, much better.

Now we come to the most common argument and it is purely ridiculous, heat. Yes quads produce more heat than duals. However, both are handles by stock cooling at stock clocks. When overclocking comes into the picture we have great cpu coolers such as the Xigmatek HDT-s1283, the TRUE, and the Sunbeam core contact cooler. All of these can be had for a reasonable price and all of these can overclock both duals and quads to their reasonable limits.

Not only this, but for gaming the Ghz stops being a factor at about 3.4-3.6 Ghz which all Intel quads can hit. This means that for gaming your higher overclocking duals don't make a difference. The only time high clocks make a difference is in strenuous activities such as encoding or converting videos, which quads have native advantage in even at much lower clock speeds.

So please please please please please actually read this and not just ignore it so that you can actually know what you are talking about. The time of the Dualcore is dead and the only time a dualcore is even worth considering over a quadcore for new systems in the sub $100 category.


Excuse me? Lol.

Apparently, not even Intel thinks Dual core is dead.

Take a look at the Nehalem roadmap, boy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nehalem_(microarchitecture)#Variants

I see Dual Core CPUs coming. Oops, I think Intel must be wrong then.
a b à CPUs
January 25, 2009 8:52:59 PM

sdf said:
Raven excellent post. I do have a question regarding it, don't mean it to be a noob question though. With what you are referring to does that encompass all "quads" or just native quad cpus?

All quads.

As for Intel's duals, they are still pursuing them because they are cheaper and lower power, not because they are faster for anything. Especially in the notebook market, the extra power consumption of two more cores simply isn't worth the extra performance, and as a result, duals will reign supreme for some time in that area. Also, on budget systems, which are a large chunk of the total systems sold, duals will continue due to the cheaper price.

However, you'll notice that there are no high end duals in Intel's roadmap - nothing to replace the E8000 series. This is because Intel does agree that in the high end, performance oriented system, duals are dead.
a b à CPUs
January 26, 2009 1:01:39 AM

To put this in perspective: I started watching these threads back in March (I joined mid june i think...). Less then a year ago, we had people saying that a 4GHz Pentium 4 OC'd would be plenty for the next couple years.

This debate is done. The switch to fully multithreaded programs in underway.


In regards to the OP, there is the GFX card component to put into play. When you use high end SLI/CF setups that lessen that variable, you see the advantage of more cores in gaming.
January 26, 2009 1:02:21 AM

Yes as I said the dualcores will be marketted as extremely cheap options and mobile CPUs. Also Intel has denied that they will be pursuing any dualcore solutions in the future, but a few sites like fudzilla disagree so that is still very much up in the air.

Edit: I love how "fanboys" always find 1 sentence to argue against and make it seem like the only reason they can only argue against that 1 sentence is because the rest of it is absolutely true.
January 26, 2009 1:45:27 AM

Umm duals aren't dead but if your going to spend over 200 on a processor might as well go quad unless you have very specific needs. Your only gaming idea doesn't make sense even you link shows a q6600 right with an E8400-E8500. In games like gta4, FSX, Farcry 2 your dual looses. You can't say gaming wise go with a dual today. In the next 2-3 years duals might hold up but they aren't going to beat quads. No dual core can run a decent FSX setup like a similar priced oced quad. There will be games over the next 2 to 3 years that will be the same.
I personally am happy with my oced E5200 but in todays market a decent oced quad plays almost everything. Now if you bought your E8400 because it got better fps in games _____,_____and____. Thats fine but don't recomend that to others unless thats all they play or use there computer for.
January 26, 2009 3:38:34 PM

The bottom line is that, for those on a budget, it is better to get an E8500 than a Q6600 for gaming.

It would also be dumb to get a fast quad if it limits your GPU choice.
a b à CPUs
January 26, 2009 3:54:37 PM

ITs easy when you give a 3.33 Duo and a 2.4 Quad. Replace the Q6600 with a 2.8 GHz Q9550, and you have an entirly diffrent answer. Even then, I'd take the Q6600 due to OC ability.

As a said 6 months ago, the start of 09 was when you would start to see core optimised games. Over the next year, I expect at least 60% of all major games (ie: the big studios) to be fully core optimised.

Duo's are nothing but a stepping stone at this point for older systems. I see 0 reason to build a new PC based on a Duo at this point in time.
a b à CPUs
January 26, 2009 4:20:07 PM

sdf said:
Raven excellent post. I do have a question regarding it, don't mean it to be a noob question though. With what you are referring to does that encompass all "quads" or just native quad cpus?


In a desktop environment, "Native' or "Non~Native" Quads is a made up argument purely based on (AMD) marketing hype. From a performance perspective for non commercial users, whether you use one or the other is largely irrelevant. Indeed, the "non-native" quads have been handing the native ones their behinds in every measure of performance except for memory bandwidth. But losing on memory bandwidth doesn't actually have anything to do with whether the cores themselves are a pair of duals, 4 singles, or one die consisting of 4 cores, but rather is entirely due to the presence of an on~chip memory controller.

Where it (does / used to) matter is in an SMP environment because each processor - (NOT to be confused with "core") - has an integrated memory controller, greatly simplifying motherboard design and therefore scalability. But I'd be willing to wager that very very few people make routine use of a Symetric Multiprocessor system. Therefore, for the great majority of enthusiasts the entire premise is generally only used as a source of differentiation and hype among fans of one maker or the other, rather than a technical advantage that actually makes a difference in real usage.
January 26, 2009 5:29:01 PM

I've read that GTA 4 has had some really bad graphics issues and being that its a shooter type game it wouldn't stress the processor as much as an RTS type game, such as Supreme Commander.

And to all the people that think dual core isn't dead it is mostly lol. Intel keeps them in production for the same reason it kept celerons in production to market ultra cheap cpus for ultra cheap computers. But intel already has a processor that fits the bill here the Atom processor. What im trying to say is there is no reason you should use a Core 2 Duo when with a properly coded program you could get double the speed with a quad core.
January 26, 2009 6:02:40 PM

[soapbox]
Single core is the way to go. Reasons:

1. They are easy to program for (only one resource!)
2. Because dual/triple/quad/sextet/and octo core processors are big, advanced and complicated.
3. Because single cores will always use less energy than multicores (read: 1<2<3<4<6<8, see....)
4. Because I have one and I'm proud of it, and it performs good enough for me [/sarcasm]
January 26, 2009 6:04:34 PM

Edit: Double post.

OP, thanks for your 'insight'. :sarcastic: 
January 27, 2009 10:51:41 AM

This is a thread about dual core versus quad core for gaming? correct?
first off for all those not aware the quad cores ARE dual cores Intel simply placed 2 dual cores on the same die and linked them together.

With the exception of maybe the new I7 quads.

If you are building a GAMING machine an E8400 cpu is less expensive then a Quad core and operates at 4.2 ghz with a large heatsink air cooled at under 40C fully loaded.

The money you save on the cpu can be directed towards a better video card or video CARDS

A good motherboard with good ram with low timings will ensure you get squeeze the most out of your cpu.

When I say 4.2 ghz on a E8400 is do able I mean it actually runs more like 4.5 ghz and I dialed it back quite a bit to make sure not only heat would not be a factor but for rock solid stability.

For gaming the video cards play more of a factor as well as the mother board and dram timings. The CPU as long as it is 3.0 ghz or more means almost jack.

3D mark 2006 only raised the cpu score 300 points for a full 1 ghz over clock in cpu speed where the GPU (video card) raised a full 1000 points in SM2.0 and SM3.0 by just a 40 point raise in core speed.

for those of you gaming on PC's for the last 10 years you are fully aware that the game developers release games roughly 3-4 years out of phase for technology.

which means whatever new machine you just built today it will be at least 3 years before you see a game that will take advantage of your new hardware and even then very doubtful.

I have a PC I built 5 years ago that plays crysis on max settings with no issues
January 27, 2009 11:02:43 AM

Quad cores or more for work junkies or video editing which the dual cores do just fine.

Now if you plan to do video editing whilst playing a game at the same time? and using the boss's computer and doing this all while at work? then by all means get a quad core as it is not your pc or your money.

Now gamers on the other hand for the most part TURN off all the other crap that is running in the background PRIOR to starting a game.

Now pay attention for all those people out there who just gotta run Norton antivirus.... Get a quad core you will need it because with the exception of windows vista I can see no other program that hogs resources for no apparent reason.

Vista is for dumb people who need windows to tell them what to do and antivirus is for dumb people who are not smart enough to avoid downloading problems. needless to say people who use Vista and Norton also use internet explorer which puts the last nail in the coffin.

XP pro and Mozilla is the way to go...
January 27, 2009 11:18:03 AM

Griffon327 said:
I have a PC I built 5 years ago that plays crysis on max settings with no issues


:pfff: 
January 27, 2009 11:30:20 AM

Correction...the machine was built 5 years ago. the game was played as soon as it was released.
a b à CPUs
January 27, 2009 11:32:27 AM

Griffon327 said:
Quad cores or more for work junkies or video editing which the dual cores do just fine.

Now if you plan to do video editing whilst playing a game at the same time? and using the boss's computer and doing this all while at work? then by all means get a quad core as it is not your pc or your money.

Now gamers on the other hand for the most part TURN off all the other crap that is running in the background PRIOR to starting a game.

Now pay attention for all those people out there who just gotta run Norton antivirus.... Get a quad core you will need it because with the exception of windows vista I can see no other program that hogs resources for no apparent reason.

Vista is for dumb people who need windows to tell them what to do and antivirus is for dumb people who are not smart enough to avoid downloading problems. needless to say people who use Vista and Norton also use internet explorer which puts the last nail in the coffin.

XP pro and Mozilla is the way to go...

You apparently haven't seen the speed increase Quads/i7's give to multi-GPU setups. That, and the fact windows runs 40 threads by itself, before you even open a game.
January 27, 2009 11:45:13 AM

Griffon327 said:
Vista is for dumb people who need windows to tell them what to do and antivirus is for dumb people who are not smart enough to avoid downloading problems. needless to say people who use Vista and Norton also use internet explorer which puts the last nail in the coffin.

XP pro and Mozilla is the way to go...


WHOA WHOA WHOA. I suspect to hear the old ignorant "vista sucks" thing coming from someone who thinks their 5 year old computer can max out crysis, even though no other system in the world can... But that antivirus is useless is plain... stupid. ANYTHING you download can have a virus because they can attach themselves the network thread and be downloaded along with the actual download.

Oh and Vista is not for dumb people... not sure how you got that one but I'm pretty sure it is for people who know something about a computer to use. So enjoy XP.
January 27, 2009 4:33:14 PM

Griffon327 said:
Quad cores or more for work junkies or video editing which the dual cores do just fine.

Now if you plan to do video editing whilst playing a game at the same time? and using the boss's computer and doing this all while at work? then by all means get a quad core as it is not your pc or your money.

Now gamers on the other hand for the most part TURN off all the other crap that is running in the background PRIOR to starting a game.

Now pay attention for all those people out there who just gotta run Norton antivirus.... Get a quad core you will need it because with the exception of windows vista I can see no other program that hogs resources for no apparent reason.

Vista is for dumb people who need windows to tell them what to do and antivirus is for dumb people who are not smart enough to avoid downloading problems. needless to say people who use Vista and Norton also use internet explorer which puts the last nail in the coffin.

XP pro and Mozilla is the way to go...

O wow i got a great LOL from this :lol:  :lol: 

Vista for dumb ppl? Ur sound like someone that still uses 98. Sorry cause ur in that group of people called idiots who a) dont kno what a driver is and how to get one to work with Vista or b)use old hardware to run it expecting it to be fast.
And Norton Antivirus + Vista = Internet Explorer :heink:  What?!
I have Vista and Norton...and WHOA, i use Mozilla. I dont exactly kno how u came to all ur conclusions, but thanks for the laughs
January 27, 2009 4:43:10 PM

gamerk316 said:
You apparently haven't seen the speed increase Quads/i7's give to multi-GPU setups. That, and the fact windows runs 40 threads by itself, before you even open a game.



No I have seen the write ups on the new I7's and they are by far the best thing to invest in but until the price on Mother boards and high end triple matched DDR3 ram comes down they are not exactly a budget build.

Better to wait 6 months till more boards are I7 capable driving the price down as well maybe Intel releasing some new dual core versions of the I7 as a dual core version will not only be cheaper but give lower temps and be able to over clock higher and still do the work load of the traditional Quad cores.

January 27, 2009 4:52:05 PM



If you have two identicle CPU's one being a Quad and one being a Duo and clocked at the same speed do you believe that the Duo is still going to perform faster ? As far as im concerned and i could be wrong but as long as they are clocked simular why would something run faster on a CPU with two less cores even if that software was coded for only two cores. Wouldnt the Quad just run that same program on two of it's cores?

Then the two remaining cores could help run all the background things that the OS need's or anything you need to run.

January 27, 2009 5:59:42 PM

I believe what is being missed is the fact that each type of processor has its own "niche" after all do we not choose the processor for what we want to do? The quads are great just for the raw computational power however they are limited on their ability to overclock (excluding the NEW I7 cores) dual cores will overclock better but the do not do as well in computational power. This argument of which is a better processor should be an argument of what is the best bang for the buck while keeping the insight of what you REALLY want to do with it. Down the road when they have 8, 12 and 16 core processors but the real answer will be "what do you want to do and how long do you want it to take? Don’t forget the wild card around the corner ..... CPU/GPU is just around the corner..... so argue on……..
January 27, 2009 7:52:37 PM

Griffon327 said:
antivirus is for dumb people who are not smart enough to avoid downloading problems.
Actually, antivirus is for intelligent people who realize that viruses don't simply come from downloading “problems”. Ever hear of hijacked web sites, or legitimate servers that get infected and spread the virus to clients? Ever catch wind of the occasional commercial software that's infected with a virus?
a b à CPUs
January 27, 2009 9:40:17 PM

Quote:
The quads are great just for the raw computational power however they are limited on their ability to overclock (excluding the NEW I7 cores) dual cores will overclock better but the do not do as well in computational power.


I've been thinking along these lines too, but I think it is only true within a couple of limitations.

I've been reading about overclocking dual cores, and this seems to be relatively easy. Whether you pick an E8500 or the lowly E5200, you can get in the 4GHz ballpark pretty easily, and even the E8500 isn't that expensive. As for quadcores, most of them have lower multipliers and so it is harder to get them to a respectable clock speed. Lots of people have good luck with the Q6600 going to 3.2 or 3.6, there's the Q9650 that can go nearly as high as the dualcores, and Tom's last system builder marathon took their i7 to beyond 4GHz. Nothing wrong with any of those overclocks on the basis of speed alone, but... The Q6600 puts out more heat than the dualcores, some people will have a problem with that and some won't. The 9650 and the i7 will put out a lot of heat too, but they will add significantly to the cost of the total build. Of course if you are spending a lot on the other components- case, video, monitors, hard drives, then the premium processors will only be a small increase in cost. If you are building an otherwise barebones machine like I am, with basic video, basic case and one hard drive, then the cpu choices will affect the price a lot more.

I'm 90% settled on what I consider the best bang for the buck, the E5200. For low heat output and low noise I could probably be happy with it at 3.2 or 3.4GHz. BUT there is that nagging voice telling me to go ahead and spend another $115 for the Q6600 so if I want to backup a drive and burn a DVD and browse the net all at the same time, it will be able to do it.
January 28, 2009 1:32:54 AM

A 2-, 3- or 4- GPU setup is greatly hindered when coupled with a dual core CPU, even an E8600 @ 4Ghz+.
January 31, 2009 2:09:06 AM

We are not comparing dual cores versus quad cores at comparative speeds?

It is a proven fact that not only can dual cores be over clocked more then 1 ghz plus on air cooling alone they can run at those speeds much cooler then a stock quad core or one lightly over clocked.

If the dual cores were not so overclocking friendly and stable with low heat this discussion would not even be a debate as the quad core would be the logical choice.

But that is not the case the dual cores can be a very good choice for someone not doing video editing for a living. personally I would rather invest the extra money saved on performance upgrades that make a very very large difference.

A western digital 10,000 rpm raptor hard drive is a very large leap in performance over a standard drive but all these people who swear up and down about quads over dual cores almost as a group are to cheap to invest in a raptor hard drive as they are extremely expensive in the dollar versus size comparison.

I would rather run an E8400 at 4.2 ghz sharing 6mb of level 3 cache between the 2 cores then run a Q6600 quad at 3.6 ghz sharing 8mb of cache not between all 4 cores but only 4mb per 2 cores.
January 31, 2009 2:16:23 AM

Did u actually just say that the Raptor gives performance gain?? lol

Are u referring to the 2second faster speed....or do u actually think it gives u more fps? lol
January 31, 2009 2:33:05 AM

Anyone running a raptor for the drive with the operating system on it knows all about the night and day difference versus using a 7500 rpm drive. It affects almost everything in the machine from boot times to game play.

Recently when I set up my new machine with a ATI HD 4870 video card I had to wipe my drives as they contained Nvidia drivers from my old cards and everyone knows you don't mix ati and Nvidia drivers.

I was playing a online game I normally play and noticed that even with the new ATI video card it was not running as fast as my much older 7800 GTX video cards using the same game the day before.

Turns out I was using a newer 500 gig WD sata hard drive with 32 mb cache in stead of my trusty 74.5 gig raptor hard drive. I turned off the machine and swapped the boot order and went back into the game and the difference was like night and day and both drives were fresh installs with identical software and drivers.

Any gamer worth his salt runs a raptor drive or dual raptors in raid 0 for gaming. large drives are great for storage and simply that.
January 31, 2009 2:48:55 AM

uhhh....

Ok, first off, a raptor only affects loading times and thats it and everyone here knows that. Once a game is loaded, it runs completely off memory unless u have like 512mb and ur using a pagefile which is much faster than any raptor.
Raptor affects loads, but not fps
January 31, 2009 4:08:00 PM

Worst ... thread ... ever. Hope griffon and nightsilencer are enjoying their time in lala land.
a b à CPUs
February 1, 2009 3:41:15 AM

well Griffon327 id have to agree yes its day and night using faster drives and raid setups on machines, but FPS difference - as the others said unless you got minimal ram forcing that page file to work hard, theres no difference! Thats why computers have "main memory"

Nightsilencer - remember those "budget" intel "dual core" processors coming up have 2 cores and 2 virtual (hyperthreading) threads, the the IPC should be above the current core 2 duo's making them closer to a quad then a dual so think again.

8 cores coming soon.
!