Dual/quad core prefromance

[lellz]

hey i have specific question probs not covered anywhere
i know how most games don't utilize all cores in quad cores i was wondering, i want to be able to screen record really well without impacting performance, would a quad core do this or should i just over-clock my dual core more, i'm at 3.4Ghz with 33-34 max temps

 

[Toxxyc]

Games today are using twin cores quite effectively, meaning a twin core CPU is still a viable choice for average use and gaming. Games are though starting to touch more cores, with some games even recommending quad core CPU's. Screen recording though can take a hell of a bite out of your CPU and overall PC performance, so a multi-core CPU on a higher level than the older dual core CPU's will really help it along. If you're planning on recording frequently, you're going to need more than two cores, unfortunately.

That being said, it's not worth buying into LGA775 anymore (which is what I'm assuming you're using). Upgrade your entire PC and witness the miraculous increase in overall performance on all basis!

 

[lellz]

i was thinking along the lines of a 1155 with a i5 2400 would be my next upgrade, this was my first system build for as cheap as possible, cause i had no experience, still works awesome though. so recording programs are completely cpu intensive no gpu or anything, also would i get a beter result now by overclocking my current to like 3.8 s or something?
thanks

 

[henydiah]

kseries will more performance

 

[lellz]

i was thinking about just going the extra 30 bucks for one, is it really worth it that much, i thought it still maxed out at 3.9 or 4

 

[Toxxyc]

The 2400/2500 CPU's aren't designed to overclock. You do get the Intel SpeedStep feature that can OC a little, but overclocking speeds have been limited to about 7% over base. If you want to overclock, you're going to have to look at the Core i5-2500K, a CPU designed and built with overclocking in mind, thus it having the unlocked multiplier. It's a solid choice and a good choice, it will last you for years to come and with a decent cooler (Hyper 212+, V6GT, etc.) you will be able to reach speeds of 4.5GHz for everyday use, no issue.

 

[henydiah]

if you can overclocked your system just buy BIG COOLER and GOOD Perfomance
E4500 can get max 1.45v from intel and max temp is 70C ... i think it's good your Asus P5G41C-M LX and Asus ATI 5770 potential to high OC but No for Kingstone Ram ... you need HyperX Ram / Gsskill Ripjaw ... or re-sell old pc for additional new PC .. just opinion ... good luck brother ..

okey i agree with toxxyc

 

[lellz]

can you tell me if i'll see better screen recording performance if i over-clock my current more, considering my very low idle and max load temps(about 18-22idle, 33max) yes i know the 2500k is unlocked but i couldn't decide if the 2400 was good enough for me
thanks
edit: i got my current from 2.7hz to 3.4 with an increase of about 3-4 degrees on stock cooling, so i think i can do more considering others run their systems at 60+ all the time(yes my room is very cold, 8-13C at nights, i'm used to it

 

[Toxxyc]

You will see very little increase in performance when overclocking the old twin core CPU. It's highly recommended to simply upgrade and get it over with.

Then, again, if you're planning on overclocking, the 2400 will not suffice. You can only raise the FSB so much before everything starts overheating and running unstably.

EDIT: And it's the last few MHz that pushes the CPU over the top. Going from 2.7GHz to 3.4GHz may only increase the temps o-so-slightly, but going to 3.6GHz for example can easily overheat it instantly. Also, I find 3.4 from 2.7 a little hard to believe on stock cooling with those temps, it's quite remarkable for one of those old CPU's.

 

[lellz]

yeah i know, but it's a quadcore 3.1Ghz, compared to my current 3.4 dual running on a 1006FSB and ram at half that, i assumed the 2400 would kill it and that i wouldn't really need the overclocking but if you reckon it's a great investment, i may just do that

 

[Toxxyc]

It's a lot more solid and future-proof choice, that's all I'm saying. When quad cores are mainstream, you'll be set square in the middle of the trend, and if you have the 2500K you will have the option of high and very high clock speeds compared to the lesser CPU's on the market (think Core 2 Quad, AMD X4, etc), meaning longer use from an expensive little piece of silicon

 

[lellz]

Best answer selected by lellz.

 

[Mousemonkey]

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey