Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

2.8 Quad vs. 3.33 Dual. HELP PLEASE

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 2, 2010 3:44:38 AM

Im building my first computer, and got a 'noobish' question. Would it be better to get a dual-core processor at 3.33, or a quad-core processor at 2.8.

Intel Core i7-860 Quad-core 2.8
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Intel Core i5-661 Dual-core 3.33
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Its main usage would be for gaming, and if ive read correctly i wouldnt need quad-core unless im doing video editing and so forth... and all games ive seen (except for bf:bc2) recommended requirements was dual-core. So id be better with better clock speed AND cheaper priced, correct?

More about : quad dual

a c 133 à CPUs
April 2, 2010 3:52:08 AM

Well I would go with the 661 yes its a dual core but it has hyper threading so it acts like a quad core with 2 logical cores and 2 virtual cores giveing it 4 threads to process information so to your operateing system it looks like a quad core. For gaming the higher clock will give you better performance and if you need a little bit extra it overclocks very nicely it will hit 4 ghz with no problems.

IMO you should get the I5 750 newegg has it for $194.99 the base clock is 2.66 but it has turbo mode which will overclock itself for extra performance to 3.2 ghz and its a quad plus these lynnfield's I5 will go to the mid 4 ghzs with good cooling and an good motherboard. It also has 8MB of cache compared to the 4 MB that the 661 has which improves gaming performance.

I5 750 vs I5 661

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/117?vs=109

Look at the gaming benches at the bottom
a b à CPUs
April 2, 2010 4:12:52 AM

I would go for the quad. It's generally much more usefull all around, and you'll be able to multi-task in game or when you're not gaming. HT for dual cores are useful, but it is nowhere near the power of an actual quad core.

Also, games such as GTA4 loves quad cores, and duals won't be able to cut it in most situations.

i7 860 quads also overclock nicely. But as SAAIELLO, a good option is to get the i5 750 quad...cheaper than the i7 860 and performs a bit weaker, but it's still a very strong quad CPU.
Related resources
April 2, 2010 4:24:29 AM

so 1v1. still confused. with the i5 750, its only 2.66, but overclocks really well? fan cooling be fine? how hard is overclocking, and any good motherboards off the bat?
a b à CPUs
April 2, 2010 5:15:36 AM

I'd definitely get the quad. The 860 is a good choice, or you could save some money and go with the 750.
a c 133 à CPUs
April 2, 2010 5:37:41 AM

If you live near a microcenter they have the I7 860 for $199 instore if you can go there get the 860 but if you have to pay the full price get the I5 750 the gaming performance is the same as the 860 the 860 is only really better in heavily threaded apps.

But IMO you shouldnt even be looking at the I5 661 this should be between the I5 750 and the I7 860. Like I said if you can get the I7 860 for $200 get that If not then get the I5 750 performance wise the I5 750 is better then the 661 all around and the I5 750 will game about the same as the I7 860.
a c 133 à CPUs
April 2, 2010 5:48:16 AM

Found this chart they dont have the I7 860 on here but they have an I7 920 which is identical to the I7 860 its just on a 1366 board and the I7 860 is on the 1152 board.



As you can see the I5 750 is almost identical in performance in gameing to an I7 920 which is exactly the same as the 860
a b à CPUs
April 2, 2010 6:00:04 AM

Bluescreendeath said:
I would go for the quad. It's generally much more usefull all around, and you'll be able to multi-task in game or when you're not gaming. HT for dual cores are useful, but it is nowhere near the power of an actual quad core.

Also, games such as GTA4 loves quad cores, and duals won't be able to cut it in most situations.

i7 860 quads also overclock nicely. But as SAAIELLO, a good option is to get the i5 750 quad...cheaper than the i7 860 and performs a bit weaker, but it's still a very strong quad CPU.


Why is GTA4 brought up as the game that represents quads? You know there are games besides that outdated game, right? Ones that do not require a quad to play? And you also do not need a quad to multitask as I have proven in the other thread.
a c 131 à CPUs
April 2, 2010 6:11:25 AM

werxen said:
I have proven in the other thread.

Gotta love that link to this mystical "other thread"
a b à CPUs
April 2, 2010 6:23:40 AM

enzo matrix said:
Gotta love that link to this mystical "other thread"


Go look for it yourself. I don't have time to baby sit you since you don't keep up with threads.
a c 131 à CPUs
April 2, 2010 7:01:57 AM

werxen said:
Go look for it yourself. I don't have time to baby sit you since you don't keep up with threads.

Apparently your definition of "Keeping up with threads" means reading every thread you post on. Though I guess I don't understand what you mean by "keeping up with threads" anyway.

Also, there is no need to be rude to me.
a c 133 à CPUs
April 2, 2010 7:16:20 AM

Dual cores are plenty for most games there are a couple that benefit from it. Bad Company 2 uses quads nicely but even with a quality dual core it runs great but if you are buying new right now there is no point in going with a dual core. But its not like the 661 is just a dual core it does have hyper threading so its a little better but when you can get a real quad core for the same price like the I5 750 why would you even look at anything else.
April 2, 2010 7:38:16 AM

saaiello said:
Dual cores are plenty for most games there are a couple that benefit from it. Bad Company 2 uses quads nicely but even with a quality dual core it runs great but if you are buying new right now there is no point in going with a dual core. But its not like the 661 is just a dual core it does have hyper threading so its a little better but when you can get a real quad core for the same price like the I5 750 why would you even look at anything else.



Agreed, a dual core will runmost gams well, but right now there is no sense in getting a high-end DC when you can get a much better quad-core for a few bucks more..
a c 133 à CPUs
April 2, 2010 8:02:11 AM

cobot said:
Agreed, a dual core will runmost gams well, but right now there is no sense in getting a high-end DC when you can get a much better quad-core for a few bucks more..


The funny thing is right now you can get a quad for a few bucks cheaper right now.

I5 661 199.99 Dual core with HT @ 3.33ghz 4 MB cache
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

I5 750 194.99 Quad core @2.6ghz Turbo up to 3.2ghz 6 MB cache
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Now why wouldn't you go with the faster I5 750. :lol:  Especially when its faster in just about everything even with its lower clock the extra 2 MB cache makes it more efficient.
a b à CPUs
April 2, 2010 8:28:36 AM

For gaming and whatnot get a BE 965 and call it a day. More $$$ for the videocard if you don't have already one, for gaming the GPU is much more important than the CPU.
a b à CPUs
April 2, 2010 8:33:59 AM

Can't edit the post above. That is if you don't have already the mobo.
a c 172 à CPUs
April 2, 2010 8:54:07 AM

werxen said:
Go look for it yourself. I don't have time to baby sit you since you don't keep up with threads.

I,m not the forum police, but if you want us to look at relevant content in another thread, please post a link to it. Not doing so has two results:
1. We're not going to look for the thread.
2. We are pretty much going to ignore what you did post.

A little courtesy goes a long way.
a c 133 à CPUs
April 2, 2010 9:04:33 AM

mosox said:
For gaming and whatnot get a BE 965 and call it a day. More $$$ for the videocard if you don't have already one, for gaming the GPU is much more important than the CPU.

The OP isnt looking at AMD so why you even posting this nonsense. The I5 750 is only $10 to $20 more then the 965BE so honestly why the hell would the OP want an inferior processor when he can get an I5 750 for roughly the same price I mean cmon do the math. So take your AMD fan crap out of here and post somewhere where they actully want an AMD. :hello: 

Thats not even adding the fact that the 965BE uses 20% more power generates alot more heat and cant even come close to as high of overclock as the I5. so stick your foot in your mouth and dont bother responding.
a b à CPUs
April 2, 2010 12:12:18 PM

I concur

Core i5 750, strap a Coolermaster Hyper 212+ to it and overclock the bitch - you'll never notice anything "wrong" with it.

Drop it in to an Asus P7P55D motherboard and you'll be flying.
a b à CPUs
April 2, 2010 1:56:08 PM

saaiello said:
The OP isnt looking at AMD so why you even posting this nonsense. The I5 750 is only $10 to $20 more then the 965BE so honestly why the hell would the OP want an inferior processor when he can get an I5 750 for roughly the same price I mean cmon do the math. So take your AMD fan crap out of here and post somewhere where they actully want an AMD. :hello: 

Thats not even adding the fact that the 965BE uses 20% more power generates alot more heat and cant even come close to as high of overclock as the I5. so stick your foot in your mouth and dont bother responding.


Hahaha, you have a bad day or you're just being yourself, kid?

In gaming 965BE is not inferior to the i5 and if the Phenom isn't wanted the OP, so is the i5 who is on some other Intel socket. Also the mobos are more expensive and Intel will replace the 1156 socket soon. So, 1366 or AM3 (Thuban X6 very soon). Don't you have a heart attack on us now.


a b à CPUs
April 2, 2010 2:04:27 PM

mosox said:
Intel will replace the 1156 socket soon.

Do you have some evidence of that? If so please share.
a b à CPUs
April 2, 2010 2:27:47 PM

Nobody has. But with the i3 it's very clear by now that the 1156 already replaced the 775 as an entry level/mid range socket. Not very good for a brand new quality system and definitely the next one to be phased out (775 is dead).
April 2, 2010 3:12:25 PM

cobot said:
Agreed, a dual core will runmost gams well, but right now there is no sense in getting a high-end DC when you can get a much better quad-core for a few bucks more..


wow this thread was going nowhere for a sec. lol. so getting a low end quad at 2.66 even, would be better than a high end dual at 3.33? so the core clock isnt really that big of a deal, being that ive heard the 2.66 will nicely clock to 4.0 or more?
April 2, 2010 3:14:24 PM

mosox said:
Nobody has. But with the i3 it's very clear by now that the 1156 already replaced the 775 as an entry level/mid range socket. Not very good for a brand new quality system and definitely the next one to be phased out (775 is dead).


so 1156 is going out of date, and id be better with an 1366? any proof, cuz going with the 1366 means WAY more $$$ imo.
April 2, 2010 3:22:12 PM

jonnyshatter said:
so 1156 is going out of date, and id be better with an 1366? any proof, cuz going with the 1366 means WAY more $$$ imo.



Naaaahh..

An i750 performs almost as well as an i920 in games and by the time it's time to upgrade, you would probably want to upgrade to a new motherboard as well.

Furthermore, I wouldn't really call the i750 a low-end quad core.. It is a fast CPU.



a b à CPUs
April 2, 2010 5:44:06 PM

werxen said:
Why is GTA4 brought up as the game that represents quads? You know there are games besides that outdated game, right? Ones that do not require a quad to play? And you also do not need a quad to multitask as I have proven in the other thread.


1. Because GTA4 is a poorly coded game that requires a quad to get good fps. If you have a better suggestion for a game that requires a quad, then list it. Otherwise, GTA4 serves as a prime example of games requiring quads.

2. You don't need a quad for multitasking...just like you don't need a dual core for multitasking either. Except duals are much better than single cores for multitasking, and quads are much better than dual cores for multitasking. This is a given fact. When you're playing a game and running adware scans at the same time, a quad is much better than a dual core. Try alt-tabbing out of an intensive game when you're running scans in the background on a dual-core...it'll be pretty slow.

a c 133 à CPUs
April 2, 2010 6:05:40 PM

The 1156 isn't going no where that noob has no clue what he is talking about. Also the I5 750 has a turbo mode so when only 2 threads are being used it will up the clock speed for those 2 cores to 3.2 ghz giveing you even better performance and as I mentioned earlier the 750 has 2MB more cache which helps alot in certain apps.
a b à CPUs
April 2, 2010 7:05:51 PM

Bluescreendeath said:
1. Because GTA4 is a poorly coded game that requires a quad to get good fps. If you have a better suggestion for a game that requires a quad, then list it. Otherwise, GTA4 serves as a prime example of games requiring quads.

2. You don't need a quad for multitasking...just like you don't need a dual core for multitasking either. Except duals are much better than single cores for multitasking, and quads are much better than dual cores for multitasking. This is a given fact. When you're playing a game and running adware scans at the same time, a quad is much better than a dual core. Try alt-tabbing out of an intensive game when you're running scans in the background on a dual-core...it'll be pretty slow.



I have. I had ~42 processes running, an AV scan, watching a 720p movie, and played a game just fine. No problem 'alt tabbing' anything. You're confusing RAM with CPU. I really can't believe even today this is still a common misconception on these forums... really sad. More ram = faster 'alt tabbing' not more cpu cores. If there was ever a more epic face palm I would post it but I don't think the internet has matured that much.
a b à CPUs
April 2, 2010 7:33:32 PM

I5-750 if you are going intel...

Getting a new dual core is stupid... Unless it's a budget PC like an Athlon II 250 (50$)

Hyperthreading this Hyperthreading that.... Still not a quad core.
April 2, 2010 9:09:41 PM

werxen said:
I have. I had ~42 processes running, an AV scan, watching a 720p movie, and played a game just fine. No problem 'alt tabbing' anything. You're confusing RAM with CPU. I really can't believe even today this is still a common misconception on these forums... really sad. More ram = faster 'alt tabbing' not more cpu cores. If there was ever a more epic face palm I would post it but I don't think the internet has matured that much.



No. I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. To a certain degree, ram is important, yes, but once you have more memory than your applications utilize, adding additional ram makes exactly no difference. (Actually, more non-ecc ram even leads to more frequent memory soft errors with crashes as a result).

If you run several CPU-intensive threads at once, for example games, video encoding etc. that utilize your cores to the full you WILL experience slowdowns. That is a fact. Especially if you start alt-tabbing around between them.
It's is the laws of physics, 3 applications cannot all use 40% of a cpus processing power at the same time. At least one of them will have to slow down.

a b à CPUs
April 2, 2010 10:38:55 PM

cobot said:
No. I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. To a certain degree, ram is important, yes, but once you have more memory than your applications utilize, adding additional ram makes exactly no difference. (Actually, more non-ecc ram even leads to more frequent memory soft errors with crashes as a result).

If you run several CPU-intensive threads at once, for example games, video encoding etc. that utilize your cores to the full you WILL experience slowdowns. That is a fact. Especially if you start alt-tabbing around between them.
It's is the laws of physics, 3 applications cannot all use 40% of a cpus processing power at the same time. At least one of them will have to slow down.


I agree that excessive ram will not boost any performance. There is no point dropping 16 gigs of ram unless you run a full server. Now you said a key thing "CPU-intensive threads at once" That is a big difference. Having applications just 'open' does not use the CPU - even if it does it will barely show up. My example above was only using ~ 11 percent of my CPU and mind you - that is also including a virus scan running at the same time. The example you're talking about is running FSX, encoding video, and possibly running a benchmark then yes you will require a quad to run them effectively. For 99% of the people here 'multitasking' is not an excuse to buy a quad over a dual. If you render, sure go for quad. If you program intense applications, get a quad. If you are a FSX hound and need your fix as much as possible, get a quad. If you have a ton of firefox, download, virus scan, play games at the same time, go for the dual.

Now take this with a grain of salt because the prices between the quads and duals are obviously very similar. The main point, however, is the fact that quads have become VERY efficient since the horrible days of the Q6600 (the worst processor for it's time IMO). I believe the new i5 quads take somewhere around 95 watt TDP if I am not mistaken? Even lower than the E8500 on idle. They also overclock like crazy because there is no ram limitation like DDR2. With that taken into account, I think in the end it might be worthwhile to buy a quad based on monetary, overclocking, and best of all, efficiency. That is why I dislike the 125 TDP 920 for 'future proofing'. Same idea used for the Q6600 but that later turned into a useless dead socket with single threaded applications being the norm.
April 2, 2010 11:04:41 PM

werxen said:
I agree that excessive ram will not boost any performance. There is no point dropping 16 gigs of ram unless you run a full server. Now you said a key thing "CPU-intensive threads at once" That is a big difference. Having applications just 'open' does not use the CPU - even if it does it will barely show up. My example above was only using ~ 11 percent of my CPU and mind you - that is also including a virus scan running at the same time. The example you're talking about is running FSX, encoding video, and possibly running a benchmark then yes you will require a quad to run them effectively. For 99% of the people here 'multitasking' is not an excuse to buy a quad over a dual. If you render, sure go for quad. If you program intense applications, get a quad. If you are a FSX hound and need your fix as much as possible, get a quad. If you have a ton of firefox, download, virus scan, play games at the same time, go for the dual.

Now take this with a grain of salt because the prices between the quads and duals are obviously very similar. The main point, however, is the fact that quads have become VERY efficient since the horrible days of the Q6600 (the worst processor for it's time IMO). I believe the new i5 quads take somewhere around 95 watt TDP if I am not mistaken? Even lower than the E8500 on idle. They also overclock like crazy because there is no ram limitation like DDR2. With that taken into account, I think in the end it might be worthwhile to buy a quad based on monetary, overclocking, and best of all, efficiency. That is why I dislike the 125 TDP 920 for 'future proofing'. Same idea used for the Q6600 but that later turned into a useless dead socket with single threaded applications being the norm.



Then I misunderstood you, my appologies. Altough I do not fully agree, more and more appplications are able to utilixe more than two cores now, and unless you are on a strict budget, my opinion is that getting a dual core over a quad core now is not very wise.

Furthermore, the CPU will matter if someone is playing crysis on max and then wants to check their email while a virus scan is running. :) 
a b à CPUs
April 3, 2010 6:04:55 AM

werxen said:
I believe the new i5 quads take somewhere around 95 watt TDP if I am not mistaken? Even lower than the E8500 on idle. They also overclock like crazy because there is no ram limitation like DDR2. With that taken into account, I think in the end it might be worthwhile to buy a quad based on monetary, overclocking, and best of all, efficiency. That is why I dislike the 125 TDP 920 for 'future proofing'. Same idea used for the Q6600 but that later turned into a useless dead socket with single threaded applications being the norm.


I have the i5. I've recently put together an AMD platform (Gigabyte/Phenom X II 555) just to see how it is, unlocking it was a surprise and a pleasure and now it's running whenever I want X4 @ 3.6GHz stock voltage. Now I have an X2 and a quad if I want, when I write this it runs dual.

The problem is now I didn't know which to sell. First of all I didn't see any difference between the two of them (with the AMD even in X2 mode!). I do some encoding but I don't really care if it takes me, say, 52 minutes (AMD on X4 "mode"), or 45 minutes (i5), I can do my other business in that time just fine.

So, I wasn't talking about the CPU's (i5 is a very fine one) but about the platforms. AM3 is futureproof, 1156 not so much.

And for daily use, games, etc these AMD CPU's are very good and not very expensive:

if you overclock;

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

if you don't overclock

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... but it's almost the same price


The AMD Phenom II X4 910e has only 65W TDP but I don't see it on newegg also the AMD Phenom II X4 925 is very good for the money.

I'm selling my i5 now, Thuban was the last straw for me. I have on my new AMD rig the latest chipset, USB3.0, SATA II, 2PCIex16x16 and whatnot. They can throw anything they want at me, Intel can bring in new sockets like they always do, I don't care anymore.


a b à CPUs
April 3, 2010 7:13:51 AM

werxen said:
I have. I had ~42 processes running, an AV scan, watching a 720p movie, and played a game just fine. No problem 'alt tabbing' anything. You're confusing RAM with CPU. I really can't believe even today this is still a common misconception on these forums... really sad. More ram = faster 'alt tabbing' not more cpu cores. If there was ever a more epic face palm I would post it but I don't think the internet has matured that much.


No pal, I am not. I know the difference between not enough RAM and not enough CPU.

I have 4GB of RAM, and I never use more than 3GB. My CPU utilization, however, is at 100% when running scans + gaming.

It's pretty obvious dual-core CPUs hit a limitation in multitasking. If you're denying this then you should be the one receiving an epic face palm.
a b à CPUs
April 3, 2010 5:33:23 PM

Bluescreendeath said:
No pal, I am not. I know the difference between not enough RAM and not enough CPU.

I have 4GB of RAM, and I never use more than 3GB. My CPU utilization, however, is at 100% when running scans + gaming.

It's pretty obvious dual-core CPUs hit a limitation in multitasking. If you're denying this then you should be the one receiving an epic face palm.


Read what I wrote carefully - you obviously didn't. I can run 1 process and make my CPU hit 100% that is not the point. You can't facepalm if you aren't even on the right page. Therefore, facepalm for you.
May 15, 2010 9:48:01 AM

Umm so what from u guys wrote i knew that i5 750 is better than i5 661 in overall including gaming.And this site supports that http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/117?vs=109. But i read in another topic that i5 661 has hyper-threating which will make it act as if it has 4 cores with more clockspeed than the 750, and as i know more clockspeed= better gaming, but does cahe matters more?? So i would really appreciate it if u guys help me to choose which of them and why is that for a gaming pc
thx alot :D  :D  :D  :D 
a b à CPUs
May 21, 2010 5:03:57 AM

The 750 is better. Yes, the 661 has hyperthreading, but that isn't a substitute for real cores.

Basically, 4 real cores running 4 threads > 2 real cores running 4 threads > 2 real cores running 2 threads.
May 29, 2010 9:39:00 AM

thx alot man
Now i only have the gpu left for the building. :bounce:  :bounce: 
!