Intel core 2 duo vs intel quad core

To answer your final question, Niether.

Most games out now do not take advantage of more than 2 cores. however, more and more games are being made to take advantage of multi-core.
To my knowledge, Intel does not make a 2 Ghz Quad.
If you want to hold onto a computer for a year or more, i recommend getting a quad.

Also, you want it to be fast in single threaded applications as well. So you want the speed to be 2.8+ ghz as a rule of thumb.

A Q9550 would be a good fit for you. It is fast in single and multi threaded apps.

Good luck!

Intel does make the q9000 which is a quad 2 ghz proc for laptops.

Are your talking about laptop or desktop build?

Laptop

ooooo.

in that case. Get the fastest dual that you can find. Quads for laptops haven't really come of age yet and are not really fast enough for gaming. especially if you want any battery life.

Can only echo that, you don't need a quad core to be honest. would probably go with a desktop though for gaming, far more options and you will porbably get better gameplay out of it, but hey your choice!

hi guys, what about 3d applications such as Autodesk 3ds Max or Autodesk Maya? Since i will be using this softwares plus Adobe Premiere, After Effects and Photoshop, would a quad core be more suitable? i am currently planning of getting a laptop but am really really having a tough time deciding whether to go for a quad core or core2duo processor. My choices are:

01. Hp Pavilion dv7-1090 (18.4")
- Nvidia 9600M GT
- Core2Duo t9400@2.5Ghz
- 4Gb ram DDR2
- 500MB Sata

02. Hp HDX X18-1175 (17")
- Nvidia 9600M GT
- Core2Quad Q9000@2.0Ghz
- 4 GB / 8 GB (max) DDR2 SDRAM
- 1Tera Storage Capacity

does this core2quad outperforms the core2quo in the specs that i've posted for 3d applications like 3ds max or Maya and games? does the core2quad have the advantage?

i've read this from a different forum

"Benchmarks
Benchmark results for 3D Games shows Core 2 duo has a very slight advantage over Core 2 Duo Quad running at 2.4 Ghz. PCMark05 System Benchmark and CPU benchmark shows Quad has a big advantage over Duo (System: 8031/7260 and CPU: 7726/6127). 3DMark06 Graphic Benchmark also shows that Quad have the advantage over Duo (10194/9120). Using 3D Studio Max 8.0 rendering a single frame HDTV 1920x1080 (dragon_character_rig) Quad takes 54 seconds to render while Duo takes 1 min 36 seconds time. There's not much of a difference between audio and video benchmarks (XviD,.DivX, Lame).

Sysmark 2007 Preview shows Quad leads the score over Duo:
* E-Learning: 143/141
* Video Creation: 167/134
* Productivity: 135/134
* 3D: 144/129
* System: 147/134

......to make it short get a quad core.

Data sources from Tomshardware.com "

honestly the only reason why am planning of getting the much more expensive and heavier Hp HDX X18-1175 is due to the fact that it has a core2quad processor. Its hefty price is about $3,245(converted to $ currency) compared to the Hp Pavilion dv7-1090 $2,537 (converted to $ currency) aside from 3d, i would also be using it quite intensively for games such as FEAR, FARCRY2, CRYSIS etc..

is the Hp HDX X18-1175 worth the price?



thanks!

If you are going to get a Quad Core based laptop then you should get a 2.8 Ghz - 3.0 Ghz Quad. If you get a 2.0 Ghz Quad and you play games that only take advantage of one or two cores then you will lose performance.

However with a 2.8 Ghz - 3.0 Ghz Quad Core you can't lose.

Single thread applications will perform well and multiple core games will play even better.

Quite a few games already use Quad Cores and one of the most popular is probably GTA IV on the PC and also Supreme Commander. Quad Core 2.8 - 3.0 Ghz FTW. 2.0 Ghz Quad Core = fail.

One problem with that: the only 2.8-3GHz quads in laptops are actually desktop CPUs. The Q9000 for laptops, at 2GHz, has a 45w TDP, allowing for something more than just 5 minutes of battery life.

That's it; computing power or battery life.

I don't worry much about battery life when it comes to my laptops due to gaming but I guess many do. In their case a mobile CPU as opposed to a desktop one stuck into a laptop chassis is the obvious choice.

I have been researching the 2.0 Ghz Quad Core vs higher clocked Core Duo and many reiterate what I said about potential performance loss in games that only use dual cores or single threads.

However, since the majority of games are more GPU dependent shouldn't the 2.0 Ghz Quad Core not reduce potential performance too much if paired with a decent GPU such as the GTX 260M or 9800M GTX / GS?


I am trying to decide between a 2.0 Ghz Quad Core laptop or a higher clocked Core Duo. Both options will have a GTX 260M and a 15.4 1680 x 1050 display (Np8662.

I bet GTA IV will run better on the lower clocked Quad but I wonder if many games will suffer but perform better with a higher clocked Core Duo.

Hey man as a recommendation from me, you should get the ASUS W90VP-a1 or x1 either depending on what cpu you want, this laptop has 2 graphics cards and they are both hd 4870's. a bit pricey starting around 2,500 $ but way worth it man. Here (http://www.xoticpc.com/asus-w90vpa1-order-p-2562.html?w...)

Personally in a laptop I would go with a dual as a 2.0Ghz quad is going to suffer in almost all applications for its low clock speed. Games, as well as most things, will run better on the 2.5Ghz dual core.

Yes 3ds max/maya will render faster on a quad, but I would only worry about that if you'll be doing extensive animations that require rendering a lot of frames. I use 3ds max for making game models and I usually only render a single shaded image of my work, rarely takes more than a minute with a 2.0Ghz Core Duo.

I don't know how powerful the GTX 260M is but with a 2GHz quad wouldn't the CPU be a bottleneck to the graphics card on games with 2 threads or less?

I have been using the Q9000 in my new laptop with 3GB DDR3 RAM, XP SP3 and the GTX 260M GPU and every single game that I have played so far, I have been able to max out at full res (1680 X 1050).

Of course, most games are very GPU dependent anyway so the 2.0 Ghz Q9000 is fine along with my GTX 260M GPU. So many seem to think that the lower clock will translate into lower gaming performance but this is not the case.

I can run GTA IV with a mixture of max and medium settings at 1680 X 1050 at 30 fps, sometimes 40 fps but most of the time about 31 fps. It runs about as good as my Xbox 360 version but looks better in some ways.

Brothers In Arms Hells High way with all settings maxed out at the same resolution, I get 60 fps and that uses all cores. 40 - 50 fps when the action gets really hectic.

Crysis at 1680 X 1050 at high, I get 60 fps , sometimes 50fps, 40 fps occasionally (all cores used), with Supreme Commander I notice that it is using all 4 Cores also, I have all settings high apart from shadows and shaders at 1680 X 1024 resolution. I get 60 fps but I haven't played with huge numbers of units yet so I would expect this to drop considerably.

Wolverine Origins runs at 60 fps maxed out, Saints Row 2 runs 1680 X 1050, medium and low settings, I get 30 - 33 fps but that seems to be even more poorly optimised than GTA IV is, if possible haha. Occasionally I get slow downs to 25 fps when driving.

What I have noticed with the Q9000 is that I can do so much more at the same time and quicker (to be expected) when it comes to applications. Even uncompressing zipped archives are faster. You start making more use of applications where before it would have been too slow to do all at once.

After installing Nvidia 180.84 Beta drivers (optimised for GTA IV specifically), my frame rates for GTA IV are 42 fps+ and almost all lag or slow downs have vanished!