Dual Core vs. Quad Core

I know this question has been asked before, but I only saw the thread from 2007. Now in 2009 when quad cores are reasonably priced, is there there a performance boost from a quad core at a lower speed than a dual core at a higher speed. I'm thinking of a Phenom 9600 (+/-) vs. Athlon X2 6000. I don't do gaming, but I do some DVD burning/editing from a camcorder (AVCHD format). My current single core processor gets bogged down when I do this and has become unstable (reboots, or causes an error and closes the program). Also, what memory (800 vs. 1066) works better with these and which motherboard should I consider?

As said before, go with the Phenom IIs. the X4 920 and 940 look like pretty good value atm.

OK, let's say a dual core X2 6000 since I really want the speed and I can not afford a Intel i7 right now. If I get a mobo with 4 or 8 GB RAM (and a 64 bit Vista OS so I can utilize the additional RAM), you think I'll have enough giddyup to do video processing/editing? My main question was if quad core was worth it performance wise if I am only doing one thing at a time but it is a data intensive program, will four cores help or am i just wasting them.

Secondly, I have read about matching the speed of the RAM, FSB, CPU so what combo should I consider to get the best matching system even if they are not the fastest on the market now.

The best quad core chip out there.....now thats funny.

The Q6600 is overpriced and out dated. Its 65nm, requires a significant voltage increase to get past 3ghz and runs too hot. Besides, if you build a socket 775 system, its virtually non-upgradeable.

If you want to go the 6000+, which I dont particularly recommend, at least you will be able to drop in a Phenom 2 later on.

2 years after its original release and the Q6600 is still quicker than a lot of the current AMD chips...

Admittedly the Q6600 is not as good as the newer 775 Quads or the I7 BUT... it still gives AMD fanboys a run for their money.

lol i dont know anybody on this forum that would get a Q6600 over a p2. wake up noob - Q6600 is old and outdated.

Q6600 is old.. accepted but they are still performance comparable to most of the current AMD range

I suggest you go read some non biased benchmarks

I had to look at the dates of these posts, as everyone is really talking about old chips here.

All this really depends on what you want to do and how much you have to spend. If your primary thing is gaming, then I'd suggest the E8400/E8500/E8600 series. These are the newest architecture for Core 2 Duo processors (probably the last of the socket 775 processors), and are about 10% faster clock for clock than the older E6400 etc series. In other words, an E8400 at 3.0Ghz stock will be about 10% faster than an E6850 at 3.0Ghz stock speed.

If you do a lot of multitasking, video / audio encoding, Linux kernel compiles, etc you'll probably be best served by more cores. Your best bet in low priced quad cores is pretty clearly the Phenom II 920 / 940. The triple core 710 / 720 are also very good as a compromise spot. Again, this depends even more specifically on what kind of software you use. For example, if you do all your encoding on iTunes, the E8xxx series is better than most quad cores because iTunes isn't heavily threaded.

I only see the Athlon X2 series being competitive at the bargain basement price points - ie if you want a $30 - $70 CPU, Athlon X2 is probably your best bet. At this price point, only the Intel E2xxx series is available and the Athlon X2's will usually handily beat them.

All this is assuming no overclocking. I wouldn't recommend overclocking to anyone, despite all the hype you see on these forums about it.

I've a desktop with Athlon64 X2 6000+ showing processor rating of 5.6 in Vista.
And a laptop with Intel T9300 showing processor rating of 5.2 in Vista.

Getting any LGA775 CPU is a bad move, with LGA1336 and AM2+/AM3 you have upgrade options down the road. LGA775 will be completely dead once i5 launches later this year.

The Phenom 2 quad cores are still at least as fast / often faster as the Q6600 and cost about the same so there is really no point in even bringing it up as an option. Also P2 X3 > E8X00.

ROFL @ that. You've had your fill of slow AMD's huh, now thats funny. Well when you run old, obsolete and slow single core processors, do you expect them to be fast?? Really, I mean X2 and A64 completely wiped the floor with the Pentium 4 and the Pentium D, so you must be talking before that right? Ok well AMD beat Intel to 1ghz, so surely your talking even before that right?

Please show me oh fanboy where the E5200 beats a Phenom 2 940 at 3.64 ghz. Please oh please. Oh and I'm sure everyone out there is choosing their processors according to itune encoding times. Get real.

Fact is, little AMD, nearly bankrupt can still compete with big Intel and offers a better price performance ratio and its so surprising to the Intel fanboy that they just cant stand it.

Dude I think you need to read again. The $625 pc, I dont even see anywhere on the benchmark chart what speed cpu or anything.
However, the two benches I quickly looked at were WinRAR and AVG which the phenom 2 was clearly twice as fast. Not sure what your looking at.
You must think the bigger the number, the faster the processor, when its the other way around.


You have several of the times you posted completely backwards. You listed some phenom 2 times as E5200 times, I have no idea what your smoking.

Lets take 2 of the ones you have listed:

Winrar, the fastest any of the $625 pc's did it was 2:58 and that was an overclocked processor, not sure what speed. The phenom 2 did it in 1:59, clearly a whole minute faster.

AVG, the fastest any of the $625 pc's was 7:08, again, an overclocked processor, not sure of speed. The phenom 2 did it in 4:08, clearly 3 minutes faster.

Those were two that you mentioned which were the only one I had time to look at right now.

So the E5200 at 4ghz beat the phenom 2 at 3.6 in 5 meaningless tests.
Of course tests that favor clock speed over cores. Woooah! Run out and get yourself one. lol.

Would you like to now retract your silly statement?

No you dont....

The E8400 is a great choice, but its pretty pricey.