The Dual-Core vs. Quad-Core debate

[zenmaster]

How about from an E6750 OC'd to 3.6 Ghz to a Q9650 OC'd to 3.8 GHz and then back to the E6750? Yeah the Q9650 was fast, don't get me wrong. It also bumped my windows score from a 5.6 to a 5.9. The problem is the performance difference is not there, I had ment to give my E6750 to my cousin and upgrade, but the upgrade was no where NEAR worth it. If the Q9650 was $350-$400 then maybe, but it was not even close. The biggest difference I saw was converting 12GBs of videos, for the fun of it, I tested before and after and found them very close, so close that if I had just gotten rid of 1 200MB video for the E6750, it would have been the same. This is because the programs I used did not fully use all 4 cores, and this being the biggest difference I had found in anything that I had done, including HD encoding, made me think that the time just was not right for quadcores yet. I will admit I do miss the almost instantaneous start up from button press to ready to go, but I can wait 10 seconds. Honestly, do not buy a quadcore unless you have below an E6300, and if you do then get the E8400 or the Q6600, they are pretty much the exact same thing performance wise.

The fact you used software that was not quad-core optimized is not the porcessors fault.
And Yes, If you are doing lots of encoding you can save that much time or more.

And if you are actually running lots of apps at once, the difference is even more impressive.

 

[nman729]

i hsve recently bought my components for my new liquid cooled rig. q9450, rampage formula, 9800gx2, 4gb of ddr2 1000 ram(ect). if i can overclock that to 3.5+ ill be a happy camper. seeing as my pentium d is running at 3.2 on air and never goes above 35c on load.

my point is, i would rather have 4 overclocked cores, than 2 overclocked cores. dont feed me the crap about wolfdales going over 4GHZ on air. its a point where you choose what you want, the ability to say "i have a dual core(like everyone else) overclocked to 4ghz on air" or "i have a quad core clocked at 3.4ghz".

you just have to choose what kind of braging rights you want.

 

[Matt26LFC]

I'd go quad if u want to upgrade now and keep the system for 5-6 years with zero upgrades.

I dont wanna still b using my dual core in 2years time when im 64bit and running multi threaded apps and games!!

 

[conquerz]

I've been reading all the comments in this thread. Interesting views from both sides of the argument.

I think people just don't pay attention to the original post. He wants it to last him 5-6 years. This meaning no upgrades just the system as is for 5-6 years. He might decide to upgrade a few parts later on or not. Whos to know. But in 5 years do you think a quad core will be better than a dual core? By 2013/2014 do you think a quad core will be a better CPU to have than a dual core? I think a quad+ will be the enthusiast choice by then if not sooner.

Thats why I suggest the OP to get a qaud core so he wont have to change later on.

Obviously, or hopefully, in 5 or 6 years time, we will see the benefits of quadcores. But what about right now and maybe for next 3 years? When quadcores will be better in 5 or 6 years like you said, then I can get one then! But right now, what is better option? That was the question.

I want to have a processor that will benefit me now and maybe up to 3 years time. After that, I don't mind lagging behind for about 2 years since I'd have benefited from my system for a good 3 or 4 years.

It would be nice for someone to give us the foresight into future for when the performance of dualcore and quadcores (similarly priced) will overlap i.e when will the time come when the overall performance (this might be dificult to define since everyone uses PCs for different tasks) of dualcore and quadcore will be very similar???

Right now, the overall performance of dualcores is better than quadcores (looking at benchmarks). Quadcores benefit from video rendering and 3d modelling applications only. So when will the time come when quadcores will also have similar performance (or better) in other areas too, for the same price? Obviously this will depend on new software being developed specifically to take advantage of multi-cores.

Like I said before, if its more than 2.5 years away, then i don't think quadcores is worth getting now. If it's less than 2.5 years away, then quadcore is the way forward.

 

[blacksci]

Lol i get a kick out of people saying quadcores cant keep up with duel cores, my games play great, responsiveness is quick and smooth, and it pushes anything i throw at it, so please where is the duel core superior here? Oh you can overclock it higher? Thats nice, even if i can oc higher my game isnt going to improve from that, a game like anything else can only run so fast, i still havent seen any concrete evidence of duel core here any better then the quad. Just like i said on the first page, you can oc higher, which does not translate into a better computer experience. Just makes your benchmarks higher. Like i said before i can overclock my video card, and bench it and see a result that is better then before the oc, doesnt mean visually im going to see a diffrence.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Reading read Halcyons posts for years, I somewhat know what kind of demands he puts on his computer. The list he gave qualifies the true use and advantage of a quad. Not every now and then encoding vids. If you have money to burn, and dont really care for cutting edge gaming, and someone who fits this scenario, sure, get a quad. But if you want the best fps, and want to save a buck or two, get a dual. Like Ive stated, its more complicated than just the band aid answer. Some may say we dont get it, the rest of us say you dont get it, you just say, get it heheh

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

When do we say good enough? Some will say, every once in awhile, I encode a vid, but losing maybe an hour over months of usage, my dual is good enough. Some say, 60 fps is good enough, Ill stick with my quad. The real questions and answers arent determined only by that answer. Will I run into a more demanding game, or a mod thatll drop my fps? and then will that quad be good enough? And does someone just want the best performance for gaming? Period. Superior to a quad. Cheaper, more thrifty? Easier to OC? More useful for the things they might actually do for their PC time? Mix that all up and you get your answer. It varies. But dont tell people that a quad is just plain better in all these scenarios when it isnt. It depends on useage, and what the user is trying to do.

 

[Matt26LFC]

I'd still go quad, multi threaded apps are coming much sooner rather than later, and the price diff between a Q6600 and an e8400 are;

Q6600

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-161-IN

Q9300

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-201-IN&groupid=701&catid=6&subcat=

E8400

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-192-IN&groupid=701&catid=6&subcat=

Based on this site a Quad Q6600 is cheaper and a Q9300 not that much more expensive than a E8400. And you can OC the Q6600 no prob on the majority of boards to 3.2Ghz. Thnk that'll do me

If u wanna give yourself the best future proof poss, surely quad is the way too go. plus it cheaper to buy a quad Q6600 over the E8400 dual.

However if power comsumption and heat is a big issue for u then go for the wolfdale

 

[The_Blood_Raven]

The truth is, this is the first foray into Quadcore CPUs (can we agree on that? Seems like no one can agree on anything). My point was buying a Quadcore now IS useless. It does not give IMEDIATE performance increase. I'm not saying don't buy a Quadcore, just wait until the next Intel socket is out and buy something then, that will be "future proof" since you will have the motherboard so when prices fall and they are giving away CPUs better than the one you originally bought, then buy another. The point is that a Quadcore can not truly be tested on a system that is not build around it, like LGA 775 is built around Dualcores, and most likely helps them in benches. Just wait, the socket is due at the end of the year at latest, there is no reason to buy something that will have to be totally upgraded just to get a better CPU. Also when the new socket comes out, like what happened with LGA 775 + Dualcores, more applications and software will start to use them and will make it even more worth while to have a Quadcore. That is my opinion, and that is what I am doing. If you do not agree that does not mean I am wrong, this is a discussion not battlefield, give you opinion don't insult each other like 4 year olds.

 

[Matt26LFC]

I agree with u blood, and thats wat i wanna do, wait for nehalem and buy the new socket, think thats the best way also.

However where here to respond to the OP's question and he seems to want to upgrade Now! So given this i can only recommend a quad as he wants it for up2 6years. If it where a shorter term, then i'd suggest an E8200 (quite nicely priced) but its not we're talking about running a CPU for quite a lengthy period of time.

If he's ok to wait 9months i'd recommend going the route you have outlined.

OP can u wait this long or does the upgrade have to b carried out in the immediate future?

 

[kbits]

If you do any kind of encoding or rendering, a Quad will be usefull right now. It's all about how often you do that kind of things, and if the tools you use will benefit from multiple cores.

After Effect beg for multiple core. Same for 3D app like 3D Studio Max, Maya, C4D and most other (just check Toms CPU chart for 3D). Even with Animation:Master, a 3D program that doesn't support multiple core at rendering, I just launch multiple instances of the program (up to three before things get sluggish) and effectively almost triple my rendering process.

However, the real deal would be to benefit from multiple core when working in the program you use, and we're not there yet for most applications out there, including games.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

I agree with you too Blood_Raven. Thats exactly how I feel as well. Too early to jump. Sockets going to change, current is already early EOL, and really no huge benefits, and in some instances, lower performance

 

[jimmysmitty]

I've been reading all the comments in this thread. Interesting views from both sides of the argument.




Obviously, or hopefully, in 5 or 6 years time, we will see the benefits of quadcores. But what about right now and maybe for next 3 years? When quadcores will be better in 5 or 6 years like you said, then I can get one then! But right now, what is better option? That was the question.

I want to have a processor that will benefit me now and maybe up to 3 years time. After that, I don't mind lagging behind for about 2 years since I'd have benefited from my system for a good 3 or 4 years.

It would be nice for someone to give us the foresight into future for when the performance of dualcore and quadcores (similarly priced) will overlap i.e when will the time come when the overall performance (this might be dificult to define since everyone uses PCs for different tasks) of dualcore and quadcore will be very similar???

Right now, the overall performance of dualcores is better than quadcores (looking at benchmarks). Quadcores benefit from video rendering and 3d modelling applications only. So when will the time come when quadcores will also have similar performance (or better) in other areas too, for the same price? Obviously this will depend on new software being developed specifically to take advantage of multi-cores.

Like I said before, if its more than 2.5 years away, then i don't think quadcores is worth getting now. If it's less than 2.5 years away, then quadcore is the way forward.

My point to you is that if you plan on not to upgrade for 5-6 years quad core is the way to go. Yes you can get a dual core now and have the best performance now. But in the next few years when 4 core CPUs start to get software, apps and games optimized for them you will want to have gotten the quad core. If you look at the benches you can see that a dual core is not that far ahead in most apps/games.

I am guessing, since no one knows this for sure, that multi core(i.e. 2+ cores) apps/games will be here in the next 1-2 years. This only due to the fact that AMD is currently pushing quad/tri cores and Intel has quads/six/octo cores on the way. The 8 core should be here by late 2009. Yes most software lags behind the CPU arena but a lot of game developers are already testing quad cores and have a few apps showing their usfulness.

If you want to see on game developer check out Valves particle demo. Valve already uses multi core CPUs for physics and wants to integrate this into their games soon. Looks great especially the rain really.

 

[maximiza]

If you check the game Sins of the Solar Empire, the recommeded system is a Multi-Core processor, it is not really stating Dual or Quad. I am curoius if they have benches on a Dual and Quad system for this software.

 

[conquerz]

OP can u wait this long or does the upgrade have to b carried out in the immediate future?

I need a new system right now. I am already late! I can't wait for more than a week!

If you want to see on game developer check out Valves particle demo. Valve already uses multi core CPUs for physics and wants to integrate this into their games soon. Looks great especially the rain really.

Valve games are my favourite. I love the Half-Life series and Counter-Strike Source.

I am very much into games, but I also do a lot of word processing, photoshop, videos too. So I am in the mix.

I think I'm going to settle with the Quad 9300. Its about (uk prices) £17 more than Q6600, £56 more than E8400 and same price as E8500... but Q9300 uses less power and produces less heat... and benches show that it outperforms Q6600.

 

[jimmysmitty]

I need a new system right now. I am already late! I can't wait for more than a week!



Valve games are my favourite. I love the Half-Life series and Counter-Strike Source.

I am very much into games, but I also do a lot of word processing, photoshop, videos too. So I am in the mix.

I think I'm going to settle with the Quad 9300. Its about (uk prices) £17 more than Q6600, £56 more than E8400 and same price as E8500... but Q9300 uses less power and produces less heat... and benches show that it outperforms Q6600.

Great choice. It is a good CPU and should serve you well. I love Valve games as well. And one thing too is that Valves Source engine is very dependant on the CPU so scales well with more, faster cores. I get on avearage 150-250FPs in TF2 and 140-200FPS in HL2/CSS.

Good luck. I suggest any of the Asus P5K series, the P5K-E is the best though, as they will be able to OC easily and with great stability.

 

[The_Blood_Raven]

The Q9300 is ok, but the Q6600 overclocks better, and can be found for a lot cheaper than the Q9300, atleast here in the states. I would go with which ever you can find cheapest, as long as there is atleast a 20 EP difference. Make sure to get a good CPU cooler, I recommend, if you can find it, the Xigmatek HDT-s1283, it performs almost exactly the same as the TRUE (Thermalright Ultra Extreme), and it costs much less WITH a great included fan (>80 CFM and not too loud). With a Quadcore you will want to overclock as much as you can, or feel safe with, so that you can get the best performance for NOW. I find it important to overclock, if you do not overclock either CPU then just get a Phenom, you wont see a difference.

 

[Matt26LFC]

Sounds like an excellent choice mate, im sure u wont b dissappointed. OC'ing may be a prob, depends on your mobo.

The processor itself only has a multi of 7.5 so you'll require a mobo capable of a 400Mhz FSB to reach 3Ghz on that chip.

I believe jimmysmitty recommended the P5K Seris of Mobo i'd go for this one

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MB-258-AS&groupid=701&catid=5&subcat=

Its a gr8 OC'er and im sure you'd hit 3-3.4Ghz using this board

Dont skimp on the cooler should u decide to OC it, the stock hsf will need to b replaced

Enjoy your purchase, post again, let us know how u get on.

 

[conquerz]

Blood_Raven, yeh Im aware the Q6600 overclocks better... but to be honest I'm not thinking about too much overclocking. Maybe up to 3.0Ghz is fine for me. I don't feel confident going more than that with either cpu. Im very concerned with power usage and heat production too. Want to keep both of these low as possible.

matt and jimmy, guess what, I had already decided to go with the P5K premium WiFi! lol. Good to see that I made the right decision there.

Thanks to all u guys for the support you gave me. I really appreciate it.

 

[jimmysmitty]

Blood_Raven, yeh Im aware the Q6600 overclocks better... but to be honest I'm not thinking about too much overclocking. Maybe up to 3.0Ghz is fine for me. I don't feel confident going more than that with either cpu. Im very concerned with power usage and heat production too. Want to keep both of these low as possible.

matt and jimmy, guess what, I had already decided to go with the P5K premium WiFi! lol. Good to see that I made the right decision there.

Thanks to all u guys for the support you gave me. I really appreciate it.

No problem. I have heard good things about that board and I can tell you from experience that the P5K is a great board. I have my Q6600 OC'ed to 3GHz and it runs like a dream. The onboard audio is great, I got a sound card for a little FPS boost. Haven't messed with the WiFi yet though.

Check back in when you have it set up and lets us know how it goes.

 

[DXRick]

I think I'm going to settle with the Quad 9300. Its about (uk prices) £17 more than Q6600, £56 more than E8400 and same price as E8500... but Q9300 uses less power and produces less heat... and benches show that it outperforms Q6600.

What happened to your "money is no object" attitude??

 

[Matt26LFC]

Yeah i dont have the P5K myself, but tend to only read gr8 things about it
Would love on myself, but gonna wait for the new sockets, wat i've got will do me for now

like jimmy says check back in and let us know how u get on m8

 

[Shadow703793]

Yeah i dont have the P5K myself, but tend to only read gr8 things about it
Would love on myself, but gonna wait for the new sockets, wat i've got will do me for now

like jimmy says check back in and let us know how u get on m8

Yeah, the P5K is a great board. Imo, the new Nehalms probably won't be very affordable untill about summer next year.

 

[Matt26LFC]

To Shadow, thats cool gives me plenty of time to save up god knows i need it, dam mortgage lol

Like i say im pretty happy with wat i got, jus ordered another gig of RAM takes me to 3Gig, so im happy to wait anyways

 

[yipsl]

Saving 20-30 minutes is NEVER going to happen in this instance, and its more like 5-10 FPS. A cheap 8400, at only $220 will only make you wait about 1-5 minutes longer than a Q9650, WORST CASE SCENERIO. The point is, buying a quadcore now is useless, I almost did it. Wait until the next Intel socket, and hopefully AMDs first decent quadcore comes out.

It all depends on what someone does. A quad core is worthwhile for video editing, 3DS Max. Not so much for games beyond Supreme Commander right now. You mentioned AMD's probably decent quad core (which I pointed out I was waiting for), but you forgot the current AM2 upgrade market.

That market can benefit from a 95 watt quad or triple core, if the upgrader doesn't mind spending the cash now and then going Deneb or Nehalem with a new motherboard later. I agree that it's not worth it ditching an existing dual core for a quad, especially with a new motherboard purchase. Yet, if anyone has an Athlon 64 or P4 single core (hyperthreading doesn't count for much), and absolutely needs a new PC now, I'd say go quad core.

Not everyone wants to keep their CPU 4-5 years. I generally keep mine 2, which is why I'm leery of spending the cash now. If money wasn't an option, I'd go B3 on a 790FX board. Quad core's at least give good braggin' rights and boost 3DMark 06 scores. They aren't that far behind in games either.

I just don't think they're a good upgrade if you already have an Athlon X2 or C2D. Wait for Deneb or Nehalem instead.