Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is a quad at 1.7 better than a dual at 2.4

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 24, 2012 1:36:23 AM

is a quad at 1.7 better than a dual at 2.4

for gaming maybe multiple vm

also is there a big diffenrence between the gen1 2n and 3rd gen of i5 an i7?

More about : quad dual

a c 190 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
July 24, 2012 1:38:36 AM

That really depends on what two CPUs in particular you are looking at, clock speed alone is a very poor gauge of performance these days, you need to at least know what model it is.
m
0
l
July 24, 2012 1:47:09 AM

hunter315 said:
That really depends on what two CPUs in particular you are looking at, clock speed alone is a very poor gauge of performance these days, you need to at least know what model it is.


lets exclude amd
what else that frequency do I need to look at?
exemple maybe?
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 109 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
July 24, 2012 1:59:12 AM

Just how the particular CPU performs in general I would say.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/363?vs=289

Those two are clocked exactly the same, i3 2100 vs i5 2400.

However that's not really an example I was looking for...some games prefer higher frequency on the cores rather than multiple cores. So for example, a game may run better on an i3 2120 (Dual core, 3.3Ghz) over an i5 2300 (Quad core, 2.8Ghz)
m
0
l
a c 471 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
July 24, 2012 6:12:23 AM

The vast majority of games only use 2 cores. Games capable of using 4 cores exists (like BF3 multi-player), are tiny in comparison to the number of games using only 2 cores.

You are better off buying a dual core Intel CPU with a higher clock speed than a slower quad core Intel CPU. Also games that can use more than 2 cores may not use them efficiently; it depends on how well or poorly the game was designed.

Since a 2.4GHz dual core CPU's clock rate is 35% higher than a 1.7GHz quad core CPU, that difference could makeup for having two fewer cores. I would be inclined to go with a faster dual core CPU.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 24, 2012 7:04:22 AM

Basically any game that can take advantage of multiple cores will run better on the quad. BUT! That's not always the case. For instance a few games may be optimized to use more threads, but the game engine in question will attempt to use one or two "powerful cores" to drive certain aspects of the game. In this case even though the game is designed to use multiple cores; the higher frequency of the dual core may outweigh the benefits given by the quad running at a lower frequency.

There are many many aspects to look at. The examples I listed above is assuming both the dual and quad are of the same architecture but different clock speeds.
m
0
l
a c 109 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
July 24, 2012 7:05:09 AM

jaguarskx said:
The vast majority of games only use 2 cores. Games capable of using 4 cores exists (like BF3 multi-player), are tiny in comparison to the number of games using only 2 cores.

You are better off buying a dual core Intel CPU with a higher clock speed than a slower quad core Intel CPU. Also games that can use more than 2 cores may not use them efficiently; it depends on how well or poorly the game was designed.

Since a 2.4GHz dual core CPU's clock rate is 35% higher than a 1.7GHz quad core CPU, that difference could makeup for having two fewer cores. I would be inclined to go with a faster dual core CPU.


+1

This is very true for many of the titles today. Even though many game engines are making the transition to utilising more than two cores, higher frequency dual core > lower frequency quad when comparing some CPU's. There's too many factors for me to say this is 100% the case, but it gives you the general idea.

As long as you do some research on which CPU to get, you'll be fine.

For example, if all you're going to do is game, i3 2120 > ALL of AMD's current FX line-up. Even if the FX's are able to be overclocked, the i3 is still superior due to it's extremely efficient architecture.
m
0
l
July 24, 2012 8:36:52 AM

You are right in what you say, guys, but don't forget the turbo boost in intels newer processors.

Turbo boost is meant to eliminate the fact that dual cores often are faster at single-threaded apps than their quadcore cousins.
Even though it may not be able to do so fully, it does in many cases reduce the usefulness of a true dual core with a higher clock speed.
m
0
l
a c 109 à CPUs
July 24, 2012 8:42:54 AM

Yea the i5 can 'turbo boost' to 3.4GHz and i3 doesn't have the turbo boost feature so its clock is 3.1GHz.
m
0
l
July 24, 2012 11:38:34 AM

!to rum multiple virtual machine, would quad be better?

2
@and how about the cache ? is that important ? what not to go under?

m
0
l
a c 109 à CPUs
July 24, 2012 12:02:35 PM

Cache is more improtant than hyperthreading atleast.

The quad core is better than the i3 at running multiple virtual machines because of the 2 extra cores and a turbo clock.
m
0
l
July 31, 2012 12:01:18 AM

is turbo clock the same as turbo boost?

are they only on 3rd generation or on 2nd too

infact if anyone could resume me the advantages of 3rd over 2nd dbe nice
m
0
l
a c 471 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
July 31, 2012 3:42:01 PM

Turbo Boost is available on both 2nd and 3rd gen Core i5 CPUs.

The general advantages of Ivy Bridge over Sandy Bridge are:

1. The Intel HD 4000 integrated graphic core represents the single most significant difference. It provides roughly a 40% performance boost in games over the older Intel HD 3000 graphic core. However, people who play games tends to install a graphic card, thus bypassing the Intel HD 4000.

2. The Intel HD 4000 offers better Quick Sync results for video encoding vs. the older HD 3000. However, if you do not encode video using the H.264, VC-1 or MPEG2 codecs and a Quick Sync capable video encoding program, then this benefit does not mean anything to you.

3. On average 5% better performance. An Ivy Bridge CPU clocked at 3.3GHz would basically be equivalent to a Sandy Bridge CPU clocked at 3.465GHz.

4. Ivy Bridge have lower power consumption, about 15w - 20w less power consumption when the CPU is operating at 100%.

5. Ivy Bridge CPU supports the new PCI-e 3.0 slot which has more bandwidth. However, current PCI-e 3.0 graphic cards have no problems running in a PCI-e 2.0 slot. It will probably take another 2 years for a PCI-e 3.0 card to be limited by a PCI-e 2.0 slot, and that would only apply to the high end PCI-e 3.0 graphic cards ($500+).

The main complaint about Ivy Bridge CPUs is that they get pretty hot when overclocked. The recommended OC for IB CPUs is about 4.2GHz to 4.5GHz. SB CPUs can generally overclock up to about 4.8GHz.

Don't forget that a IB CPU is on average about 5% more powerful than a SB CPU. Therefore, an IB CPU OC'ed to 4.5GHz will be equal to a SB CPU OC'ed to 4.725GHz.
m
0
l
!