Closed Solved

Please advise ... choosing between Quad and Duo

I have to choose between e8400 and q8200 (just these two). The Duo is 3.0 mhz/6 mb cache, the Quad 2.33 mhz/4 mb cache.

I'm on an MSI P45-Neo2, with 2x2 gb of 1333 OCZ Reaper, (and the Cooler Master 690 nVidia case, which is pretty cool actually).

I'm not a gamer, just maybe 6-8 word processor dox and 10 browsers open max, plus a minimal image editor. Although I am planning to move some multi-track recording stuff onto the computer pretty quick here, off an older stand-alone recorder.

Lemme know which one sounds best, please.
19 answers Last reply Best Answer
More about please advise choosing quad
  1. I'd say go for the quad if your using lots of applications and end up doing some semi-serious sound work on it,
    just do a little research to make sure your Mobo does support it before you buy it :)
  2. Hi newcomer and welcome to the Tom's hardware forum.

    What price are both e8400 and q8200?
  3. cant you get a lower end dual core? both processors are overkill
  4. Price is not an issue ... I already own the quad, and a friend wants to swap his e8400 straight up for it. The retail prices are pretty even, both between about $150 to $180.

    The mobo supports the full line, all the duos and all the quads ... it's really a beaut of a mainboard:

    I guess the software I'll be using is the key factor ... I hear you that the audio recording would be better with the quad. So what is better wit the Duo? What advantages does the faster clock speed give me? It's 25% faster, and there's 50% more cache.

    And thanks for the welcome, and the responses. I posted the same question in the Intel forums 3 days ago, and still nothing.
  5. Best answer
    The big performance jump is from two core to three cores, doesn't exist many games or applications that can use the four cores even Adobe can't use more that three cores.

    Some other applications are more friendly with high clocks and large cache that with the quad cores. Since u aren't a gamer the dual-core should be a good option for u.
  6. So the fourth core is redundant at this point? By "some other apps" you mean mostly future 64 bit stuff?

    That does change the equation. Considerably. 3 cores to 2 is alot less advantage than 4-2. I take it by your last sentence you recommend the dual for me? If you affirm that recommendation, I'm gonna go with it, seriously (seeing that you're a mod and all)

    And you xaira ... why you wanna keep me down? Why you hatin'? Can't a guy reach up for something better? I suppose you think midgets shouldn't own Cadillacs either. Hater

  7. IMO the dual-core can do the job without problems, but just go with that if u are planing in build a new rig soo (6 or 8 months max) if doesn't go with the quad since have better proof life.
  8. You already own the quad, swapping to the dual core is a downgrade as far as I'm concerned.
  9. The Quad is the better option in my experience. When I had a Core 2 Duo 3.0 GHZ it dropped heaps of frames when encoding in MPEG 2 as there was no overhead left on the processor. My Core 2 Quad at 2.33 GHZ had no such issues even though the clock speed is lower. SIngle threaded applications may do a bit better on the Dual Core but the i7 and i5 Turbo Boost resolved that issue. As for AMD well I dont go there to be honest.
  10. No saint, this IS the new rig. I only build a new one every four years or so ... I'm dumping a 3.04 Ghz P4, with 2 gb PC3200 memory.

    Wow ... just when the Duo looks like the choice - I had basically decided on it in my latest post above - I get three Quad recommendations in a row I suspect that despite the fact he's a stone-cold hater, xaira is correct. Both processors are more than enough for my needs, so I'm just gonna stick with the Quad. Besides, it's a long drive to get to the guy's house to trade, and I am one lazy bastard.
  11. Yeah, in that case go with the quad and u can try to rise the clock a little with OC that isn't difficult.
  12. go with Quad and try to get atleast Q8300.........
  13. Rohn, the only real difference is the 8200 does not have virtualization, is that what you meant?

    You guys are VERY COOL here at Toms, lots of responses ... as opposed to Intel's own home forums. I posted this question 5 freaking days ago over there, and still zero responses, can you believe that?
  14. not only virtualization but also Q8300 has a higher clock speed.. Q8200 is 2.3 ghz and Q8300 is 2.5... and most important price difference is not big......
  15. 200MHz doesn't make a big performance difference and u can get that 200MHz with OC for fewer price.
  16. saint19 said:
    200MHz doesn't make a big performance difference and u can get that 200MHz with OC for fewer price.

    in that case, i will say still go for Q8300 cause it's 7.5 multiplier compare to Q8200's 7 multiplier...... he can overclock Q8300 more efficiently than Q8200......... :D
  17. Best answer selected by broncobuff.
  18. Quad 2.33 means 2.33 + 2.33+2.33+2.33 ..& dual 3.0 means 3.0+3.0 add the up ...any way Quad core { what ever it be } is better than DUal Core go for QUAD ...i suggest you go for higher QUAD CORE like Q9400 { it rockes}
  19. The question was solved
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Quad Cache Product