quad vs duel core

[Diknak]

I am building a PC next month and I am starting to look at some components to buy. The motherboard I am looking at supports AM2+ and AM2 and I can't decide if quad or duel core is better. I play EQ2 a lot, which doesn't take advantage of multiple cores and is very CPU intensive. I also play newer games coming out that will take advantage of them. The quad has an operating frequency of 2.3GHz and the duel has 3.2GHz.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103228

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103244

My question is: What are your opinions on the pros and cons? Thanks.

 

[wahnula]

My thoughts are any application that can use dual-core will use the quad-core. Going forward more and more applications will make use of multi-core CPUs, so for future-proofing I will always choose more cores, even if today's apps can't really use them fully.

Yes, I know, more clock speed on the dual-core, more L2 cache-per-core too. The dual-core would be a good choice as well, but my builds from here out will be quad-core if the budget is there.

Any reason you are not entertaining the quad-core Intel Penryns?

Tony

Users helping Users...

 

[cdogg]

Dual-core will give you enough of an edge. Someday, quad-cores and future CPUs will really shine when everything we use becomes multi-threaded, but the PC you build today won't last long enough to really see that happen (referring to other PC components becoming outdated).

Sure, there are plenty of multi-threaded apps out there now that can take full advantage of a quad-core. But the real question is, how many of those apps do you actually use? Only if the answer to that is two or more on a regular basis would you really have a need for a quad-core. A single-threaded app will run faster on the dual-core because each core clocks in at a higher speed. A way of looking at this is that at least 90% of what you do on the PC has a chance of running slower on the quad-core (even if it's not necessarily noticeable).

Just my 2¢

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Einstein
[tab][navy]For posting policies, click [/navy]here.

 

[cdogg]

Just saw Tony's post (we posted around the same time)...

I'm not taking anything away from Tony's post. It's a good idea to future-proof. You never know how fast the market will change. Dual-cores have only been mainstream for the past 2 years really, so we could see big changes in the near future. Guess that's the risk you take, though I think dual-cores will still thrive just fine in the early rounds!!

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Einstein
[tab][navy]For posting policies, click [/navy]here.

 

[Diknak]

Thank you for the help. The reason I was sticking with AMD was simply because the Mobo that I was looking at was for AMD. I will look into other possible combos though.

 

[BadBigBen]

Both valid points...

Here is one more, supporting cdogg's view on things, more than wahnula's...

Dual CPU mainboards have been around for sometime now (late 80's) but mainly in the server area... but hardly any software made it or was written to truly support these two CPU's (aka multithreading), this is becoming more and more common these days, but still is scarce...

the software that uses multithreading at present, are either video editing, CAD/CFX, etc. programs that cost way too much for personal use ($1000++)...

Games have yet to be written to support multicore cpu's... there may be one or two titles out there that do support multiple cores, but I've not come across them yet...


what does speak for the Dual and Quad cores, is that they are the future... a neat thing is that you can edit, recode videos, for instance, and play a game at the same time, without the PC going unto its knees, of course memory permitting...

PS: I do have a Dual Core Intel, both in my LapTop and home PC, but alas have yet to push them to the utmost that they can handle...

Ben

"If it works don't fix it! If it doesn't use a sledgehammer..."

 

[Diknak]

I think I am going to stick with duel core then; it looks like a lot of people recommend that on some game forums as well. Thanks for all of the input.

 

[Diknak]

alright, here is my setup:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811124115

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136012

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814241070

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231166

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813127033

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115028

The only thing I am missing at this point is a PSU. Any thoughts on voltage? Other opinions on my current setup?

 

[LordPie]

The E6850 is not a very good value at that price vs the newer E8400. It's 60 bucks cheaper, and is on the new 45nm wolfdale core, which will run much faster and cooler, has more cache, SSE4, the list goes on.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115037

The downside would be the speed at which it's flying off the "shelf" on newegg... They are estimated back on the 4th so if you can grab it then it will be well worth it.

Other than that it looks good, I'd also say that you could swap the hd3870x2 for a 9800GTX which is 100 bucks cheaper, and performs only slightly lower than it (higher in some cases) but if price isnt an issure you're fine.

 

[Diknak]

I am going to be building this system over the next couple of months, buying a few pieces at a time, so I'm sure that the availability won't be a problem. Thanks for the awesome suggestion.

 

[wahnula]

I'm sorry, but I don't see the value of spending $210 on a dual-core when $80 buys two more cores and is not a vapor product:

http://www.directron.com/eu80580pj0606m.html

This is a 45nm process, less energy-consuming, more overclock-friendly CPU than the E6850.

Ben, your argument falls short when we all know you are lusting after a quad-core, Q6600 as I recall...

Also, I would recommend a M/B that supports DDR3 as well as DDR2, again for future-proofing. PCIe 2.0 support is another nice feature.

Tony

Users helping Users...

 

[Diknak]

Thanks for your input, but your link is for a CPU that is $80 more and .50 ghz slower per core. I understand that you would be getting two more cores, but I am building the machine for gaming, not multitasking, so since not many games use multi threading, I think I am going to stick with two cores for now. I decided to make a slight change to my GPU:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121228

I didn't like what others had to say about the one I posted earlier. As for the PSU, I have decided on:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817814006

The GPU doesn't post a power requirement, so I'm not sure if 800w is enough.

 

[wahnula]

not many games use multi threading

Agreed, not many of TODAY's games use multiple cores, but that's the way computing (and gaming) is headed. Since gaming mostly stresses the 3D GPU, the CPU twiddles its thumbs while the GPU busts its hump.

Good choice on the GFX card, it's the fastest single-card solution without having to mess with SLI or CrossFire. Since these are low-power chips your PSU should be fine...but I would be sure to get a PCIe 2.0 mainboard to take advantage of the throughput increase:

http://ati.amd.com/products/radeonhd3800/index.html

PCI Express® 2.0 – Get ready for the most demanding graphics applications with PCI Express 2.0 support, which allows up to twice the throughput of current AMD PCI Express cards

Especially since you will be assembling this over time, remember that today's monsters can be tomorrow's goats, so buying the latest tech standards (like PCIe 2.0 and DDR3 support) will insure that your rig stays relevant longer.

I bought an LGA 775, DDR1/DDR2 combo board a few years ago, at the time DDR2 was sky-high and slow. Now I am using DDR2 RAM and the system is still relevant.



Tony

Users helping Users...

 

[BadBigBen]

Ben, your argument falls short when we all know you are lusting after a quad-core, Q6600 as I recall...

yeah, there was a time I was lusting... but at present I'll wait, at present my dual core will handle all that I throw at it, and my mainboard can still be expanded what mem is concerned, it has two slots for DDR3 MEM and 4(2 empty) slots for DDR2...

Ben

"If it works don't fix it! If it doesn't use a sledgehammer..."

 

[Diknak]

Very good information. The board I have selected does have PCI-E 2.0, so I am all good. I would rather stick with one GPU card atm so if I want to upgrade, all I have to do is add another one. With this set up, it gives me the extra PCI-E 2.0 slot to work with for the future and it allows me to upgrade my CPU to a quad core when they become more popular. I just can't justify spending more money when it won't be used for so long. And by the time they are utilized, the price will have fallen like a brick.

 

[ceh4702]

Only believe benchmarks.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3272&p=12

This was a benchmark comparing the E8200 and Q9300 which are both .45 Process CPU's. Playing Crysis the Core 2 Duo is better, but in Graphics and Animation there is a significant improvement using a Core 2 Quad Q9300. So it just depends what is most important to the user. If you are a graphics student and dont play games much maybe the Quad is a better deal.

I know that benchmarks sometimes favor one processor type or one chipset over another one, so results may vary due to the benchmark.

If you do not like my post feel free to point out your opinion or my errors.