[citation][nom]mikewalker[/nom]Actually I do exactly that, as do many others - don't make such broad generalizations! It's quite obvious that for now and the foreseeable future a fast dual core CPU is the best option for the vast majority of computer users - for example, running an e8400, stock volts overclocked to 3.6 ghz! Try that with a quad core! Fast performance, low price and energy savings - we have a winner folks! In my opinion the best overall values right now are the e5200 and Kuma 2.7GHz, made by Intel and AMD, respectively. Both can be very nicely overclocked and will handle almost any task perfectly.[/citation]
My multitasking and heavy usage makes the E6600 @ 3.2ghz no match for even my Q6600 at stock
Is there a reason why lately people are hating higher performance items like SSD's, Core i7's, Quads, etc?
[citation][nom]jeRrRKKKK[/nom]should have used a phenom 2 for testing instead. the c2qs are not native quad cores, they are native dual cores pressed together... thus the results would be dual core biased.[/citation]
Idiot
[citation][nom]MotifatorEx[/nom]he does have a valid point tho we allways have somthing running in the background.[/citation]
Exactly my point - fresh install is BS when the real world we have 10x the stuff running
[citation][nom]jasonstokes[/nom]This is a great article. and it is great to see that some applications do use all the cores efficiently. I run a AMD 720 with Ubutnu 8.10 the one thing I love about my 3 core systems is if an application only using 1 or 2 core (as some do), I still have head room to run other application. with more cores it just means I can do more things at the same time....[/citation]
And whats wrong with yet another spare core?
[citation][nom]trinix[/nom]I think too many people want to hear, you have to buy a quad core, because they got one.I'm sorry, but the average Joe should buy a dual core. He has no use for more than 2 cores at all.For gamers it's different. They can either go dual or triple, with triple giving the best advantage for today's games.Are you into video editing and other heavy cpu programs that require a lot of cores, yes, a quad core probably i7 is best for you.Next year? Who knows. I can't tell you what we will see next year, but this year I don't really see a lot of changes in software except for win7. If you can get a faster dual core or triple core, you will get better performance than going for a slower quad core in games and desktop application not optimized for 4 cores. You have to know what you use it for. I'm not saying a quad is useless, just think that a dual and triple give more bang for the buck, especially for people who are on a budget.[/citation]
If the average joe can get a quad for a few $$$ more then thats the chip for average joe. 10% slower in single/dual threaded apps (clock speed) vs 50+% faster in multithreaded is better, plus future proofing etc
[citation][nom]rickzor[/nom]omg, does this means that my pentium III tualatin @ 1.32ghz on my bx440board from 1999 isn't good enough for games already? :0[/citation]
BX440 boards dont usually nativity support FSB133 130nm cpus, the 815E series chipsets addresses those issues (modern socket, proper agp/pci ratio for FSB133 etc)