Need help on either Dual or Quad

[GameRGeeK]

I have been reading on Dual and Quad core cpu for the past months and I have this question regarding which would benefit me more and which one will hold me back and which one is basically useless with the extrea 2 cores or the lacking of 2 alike.

What cpu would be the most ideal thing to utilize? I plan to get the cpu buy the start of the price cuts in Mid-July to August. (iI am currently planning to build a new gaming rig)

I want to be able to:
1) burn a DVD to another DVD
2) download large files of the internet (such as game demos, movies, etc)
3) playing a high-end graphics game (assume I'm using a good card)
4) having mutiple windows up (surfing the internet and such)

all at the same time without the fuss of anything lagging to much

Although I have read from so many reviews and opinions, its kinda hard for me to choose, yet as the years passes onward, i do see a better future for Quad then I do with Dual.

Any help would be appreciated.:thumbsup:

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

Quad

 

[GameRGeeK]

What is an Ideal Quad? I was considering the q6600 as it is the most talked about Quad when regarding OC and gaming, but then the 45nm Quads seem nice too

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

They both seem to produce the same heat, just the 45nm uses less wattage and if your $$$ conscious, it may help with those concerns. If you game with anything less than a 3870 or 8800GT (92) you will take a hit regardless. My X1900XTX runs decent but with mipmap turned to performance instead of quality and no AA and low AF. I am liking my 9300 for gaming alot although the only 2 games i have on it right now are UTIII and COD4, but UTIII is where the quad shines. I also have UTIII on my 8400, check sig, and the quad runs it smoother

Good luck on your choice!

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: GameRGeeK


I want to be able to:
1) burn a DVD to another DVD

Clone DVD 2.908
Transcoding DVD 9 to DVD 5 GB (Terminator 2 SE) (Convert DVD-9 to DVD-5)

From THG's CPU Chart:
e8400 = 424 sec
q6600 = 504 sec


2) download large files of the internet (such as game demos, movies, etc)

install a second (third...fourth...) data drive for your transcoding and downloading - skip the T1 and go directly to OC-3. Downloading copyrighted movies over the internet is illegal.

3) playing a high-end graphics game (assume I'm using a good card)

very few games will run multiple threads across 2 cores - much less 4. You make the call. I would personally take the e8400 and OC the snot out of it But to each their own

4) having mutiple windows up (surfing the internet and such)

Don't know how you can surf and game at the same time but multiple windows/tabs is more memory intensive than cpu intensive - 64-bit OS and max RAM here

all at the same time without the fuss of anything lagging to much

.:thumbsup:

 

[GameRGeeK]

actually i plan to run the Quad with the new GTX280 or ATI's new card the 4870x2, when they come out this month, and if i could see a real performance boost with dual cards, then I'll get 2 instead of one. I just dont want my cpu to bottleneck when i play. And plus having a 30" inch monitor i should think the higher Quads are best suited with this kind of configuration.

 

[GameRGeeK]

heyheybooboo,

But if i want to futureproof my cpu for the next years that will come to pass, wouldnt a Quad be more realistic? I mean dual is in now, but Quad is eventually be on top by the end of this year and into the next, right?

Dual *based on personal experience* I have a current rig with a e6600 running at 3.4Ghz and my medieval II: Total War gave me a hard time, said I needed a stronger/faster cpu to have more soldiers onscreen, i know it may or maynot sound reasonable but thinking a Quad kind of spreads the load to 4 rather than 2 cores, i rather have a Quad no matter how fast a dual is, just my opinion.

But thanks for the clear up on my 4 questions, it gonna help me with the memory and OS department.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: GameRGeeK
But if i want to futureproof my cpu for the next years that will come to pass, wouldnt a Quad be more realistic?

Definitely.

I mean dual is in now, but Quad is eventually be on top by the end of this year and into the next, right?

Most likely, but we consumers have no way of knowing for sure when all of the big releases will be multithreded. Every game in the early phases of development today will be multithreaded when it's released, but as far as games that will be out in the next 12-18 months, there's no way to know.

Dual *based on personal experience* I have a current rig with a e6600 running at 3.4Ghz and my medieval II: Total War gave me a hard time, said I needed a stronger/faster cpu to have more soldiers onscreen,

Medieval 2 isn't even dual-threaded, according to every forum I could find that was discussing it, like every game I've seen released in the last 12-18 months. It's built on the Rome: TW engine, it seems.

 

[betasub]

dp

 

[betasub]

Originally posted by: GameRGeeK
But if i want to futureproof my cpu for the next years that will come to pass, wouldnt a Quad be more realistic? I mean dual is in now, but Quad is eventually be on top by the end of this year and into the next, right?

"Futureproof" shouldn't exist as a word on a hardware forum. The pace of development is too fast to be buying now for next year. Buy now for now, because you will be upgrading eventually regardless (for far better performance/price than is currently available).

Dual *based on personal experience* I have a current rig with a e6600 running at 3.4Ghz and my medieval II: Total War gave me a hard time, said I needed a stronger/faster cpu to have more soldiers onscreen, i know it may or maynot sound reasonable but thinking a Quad kind of spreads the load to 4 rather than 2 cores, i rather have a Quad no matter how fast a dual is, just my opinion.

I too play M2TW with a dual core (E4500 @3.3GHz) and I understand what you mean about performance when you have maxed out the settings. Not sure where it specifically "said [you] needed a stronger stronger/faster cpu" though... And sadly M2TW is still a single-threaded game - you can see it only using a single core in Task Manager (and deliberately restricting it to any one core doesn't affect performance). For this particular game, 1 faster core > multiple slower cores.

 

[OCGuy]

For this particular game, 1 faster core > multiple slower cores.

Actually that is most games.

 

[MraK]

I had the same experience with Medieval II: total war that GameRGeek had. its when you try to bring in reinforcements and when you are out numbered 3 to 1 (basically i max soldiers in one battle could not exceed 6000 when it came to "reinforcements" their will be a sign stated that reinforcements will arrive late, then below that statement it will say something like "please upgrade your cpu". But as what some of you have stated, maybe this games needs a faster core, since its only single-threaded, meaning having to raise it from 3.4 to 3.8 or even 4.0ghz even.

 

[heyheybooboo]

OP:
'Futureproofing' is really hard to get your hands around. There will always be 'better, faster' right down the road. I don't think the issue is as much 'quad versus dual' as it is multiple threads across parallel cores. Software will be optimized for SSE4/5 instructions before it is rewritten for thread parallelism. You are correct with your 'load-balancing' theory but that is slower and more a product of the OS (Vista seems to balance loads a little better than XP) than the software. The issue with load balancing is the constant I/O writes between core0-cache-ram / core1-cache-ram / core2-cache=ram / core3-cache-ram for the threads. A faster core running a single thread will whup it every time.

BTRY B 529th FABN:
AFAIK 2 cores sharing 6mb cache > 4 cores sharing 6mb cache (not considering a 15-20% clock speed advantage available to something like the e8400). IMO lotta useless cache flush in those I/O writes in sharing those four cores.

As far as your comparison the 50% ram clock / 25% gpu clock advantage of the 3870 over the X1900 XTX might have something to do with your 'snappiness'. Maybe DX10 and your ram, too.

 

[DSF]

Originally posted by: GameRGeeK
I just dont want my cpu to bottleneck when i play. And plus having a 30" inch monitor i should think the higher Quads are best suited with this kind of configuration.

Actually, the larger your screen gets the less impact your CPU starts to have on frame rates. In 99% of gaming cases, at 30" your monitor is going to spend enough time waiting on your graphics card(s) that the CPU is second banana.

 

[GameRGeeK]

So your saying, Im better off with a Dual for now and not be prepared for when Quad is the norm? What I'm trying to say is, i should just stick to an e84 or e85 and OC rather than do the same with a Quad (OCing it too)?????

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

It all comes down to the heat for me. I don't mind it with my quad and maybe booboo is right in regards to the card difference.

 

[n7]

Quad core.
Here's the UE3 engine at work on a quad.
http://img338.imageshack.us/im...gatesnodeperchijl4.jpg

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

I am all about UTIII ctf - that's why i built my quad but funny enough, my 8400 is where i do best. Probably cause I haven't copied some config files from this machine to my other :S

 

[GameRGeeK]

Originally posted by: BTRY B 529th FA BN
I am all about UTIII ctf - that's why i built my quad but funny enough, my 8400 is where i do best. Probably cause I haven't copied some config files from this machine to my other :S

What your saying is your e8400 beats your Quad currently? hmmm how much of a % is it faster than your quad? if its only %10 or less then i guess its safe to say to go for Quad now, I rather have a Quad that may be a little slower compared to a dual now and in the the end to the next year to come and beyond to eventually out perform it, than to have a dual that is faster than a quad for now and then lose out in the following year, because its already June.

Thats just my opinion, based on what I have read so far.

Anyone agree with me?

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

Originally posted by: GameRGeeK

Originally posted by: BTRY B 529th FA BN
I am all about UTIII ctf - that's why i built my quad but funny enough, my 8400 is where i do best. Probably cause I haven't copied some config files from this machine to my other :S

What your saying is your e8400 beats your Quad currently? hmmm how much of a % is it faster than your quad? if its only %10 or less then i guess its safe to say to go for Quad now, I rather have a Quad that may be a little slower compared to a dual now and in the the end to the next year to come and beyond to eventually out perform it, than to have a dual that is faster than a quad for now and then lose out in the following year, because its already June.

Thats just my opinion, based on what I have read so far.

Anyone agree with me?

No, I'm just basically saying my experience thus so far has been, I feel, more competitive on my 8400 as where on my Quad, it takes less effort to be competitive. And as of right now, my best game has been on my 8400.