Hi . I just got a desktop with a core2 quad core processor and could have gotten the single core for the same price. I stupidly did the research after the purchase and found out that the quad core might not be as good as the single core processor. Is this true?
I found this article - http://www.anandtech.com/show/2832/4

I think you misread the article - its about power dissipation not performance and that was about 3 years ago that article although you might be close if you have a three yr old proc like a core2 quad (mind you my media PC and two spare PCs are all core 2 quads, and they are great.

I wouldn't trade in my i7-2600K for a single core running the same speed dissipating the same power... what a waste! todays procs are all about efficiency, and how many tasks can be performed per clock cycles as well as the many apps that use multi-procs to spread the load.

I think if you were to some more research you might not feel like you wasted your money! P.S - can you buy a single core proc anymore?

ACSS - SME
General Geek

I do have a core 2 quad core. Should I just change The chip to make it faster?

There are other factors that could be making the machine slow. What are the model numbers, and specs of the different components in the computer. As HSM said, the article you linked has to do with TDP (Total Distributed Power)? Has nothing at all to do with speed, or what each core does with the speed. An I-3 dual core with the same clock speed will pretty handily beat a cd2 of the same clock frequency because of improvements to the design of the cpu, it does more with less. Run some benchmarking software, futermark makes a free one available, then compare it to other computers with the same spec, if you are more than a few degrees out of whack, you need to investigate why. Don't get hung up on clock cycles, it's what those cycles can do that matter. Look at the quad core I-7's (first gen) They could be more than 400-600 mhz slower that c2d at the same time, but they would crush the c2d, especially in multi-threaded software benchmarks. Besides what are you changing to, and from what? Also remember, that there are not many c2d, or cdQ chips still being made, Socket 775 is a dead socket.

A core 2 quad is still a pretty fast processor and will easily trump any single-core (which I don't think are even being made anymore). I would start by checking your memory. How much do you have? 4GB or higher should be great for most apps and some games. Also, what speed is the memory? If it's DDR2, try to go for 667 or 800 mhz or higher if your motherboard supports it (I would stay away from the slower 400 and 533mhz ones). Next, check the hard drive and do some benchmark tests. Maybe a newer drive (especially an SSD) could give your system a boost.

Dan

If it ain't broke, why fix it?
If it's broke, try to fix it..
If you can't fix it, get yourself a good baseball bat and swing away! :)

@wannabie2, after checking the link to the article you posted I noticed that they are comparing the core 2 quad to the core "i" processors. If that's what you were referring to.. the core i's are not single-core, they are dual to octo core with hyperthreading (giving you anywhere from 4-16 virtual cores) and those (with maybe the exception of some i3's) will be faster than core 2 quads.

Dan

If it ain't broke, why fix it?
If it's broke, try to fix it..
If you can't fix it, get yourself a good baseball bat and swing away! :)

People still miss the fundamental issue with multi core processors.
If the app / os is not optimised for mutlicore (multi-threaded), then it is possible that it can actually run slower.
Decent apps have been multi-processor aware fro some time, but many are not.


Take a look at this Wiki.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multithreading_(comp...)

Robert Wilensky:
We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true.

http://alvechurchlounge.org.uk

Maybe Sympology. But that is kind of a pointless statement, as Intel is currently producing exactly one single core desktop CPU. And that is a 1.6 Ghz Celeron. I'll still take any I-5 quad core, with turbo because it will crush it, even on single threaded programs. And if someone even thinks that in the real world an old single core Prescott series even at 3.6 Ghz, is/was faster than a C2D running 2.6 Ghz, they are out of there mind. I upgraded a system like this years ago, it was my desktop. Everything I did, the C2D was faster, and did it with a lot less heat. Granted the upgrade also saw the system go from DDR to DDR2, and AGP to PCIe graphics. [tongue]

Sympology,
If you had identical processors where one had two cores @ 2 GHz and the other had a single core @ 3 GHz, you'd have a point. However, the problem as rclarke points out, is that you can't have a comparison like that today. The single-core P4's are no match for the Core architecture or especially the newer Nehalem and Sandy Bridge CPU's. And the main reason single-core went out of style has to do with multi-tasking. Although a single-threaded app can only utilize one thread at a time, multiple single-threaded apps running simultaneously will do better when multiple cores/threads are available. Also Windows 7 was designed with multi-core processors in mind. It helps them manage resources and assign threads more effectively, allowing for Turbo Boost to kick quicker and more often than on previous versions of Windows (see article at InfoWorld).

So in a tight vacuum benchmarking a single application on an older version of Windows, you might have a point. It's just becoming less and less common to see that comparison matter in a real-world situation today.

-Carl
"The glass is neither half-full nor half-empty: it's twice as big as it needs to be."

    For this site's posting policies, click here.

I have a quad core proc in my phone now! and its probably quicker than aforementioned single core proc

ACSS - SME
General Geek