Quad-core or Dual-core ? Which one do I pick ?

[sangyup81]

i'm surprised all this amd vs intel talk hasn't gotten this thread locked yet. imagine if the i3-2120k rumors were real. even fewer people would buy amd

 

[jtison]

I run a Q8200 which I'm very happy with. Doesn't matter whether your game (I don't play, sorry) uses 1 or 2 cores; there's still an operating system underneath which still requires attention. When you've got CPUs to throw around, TCP/IP is immediately serviced, post-IO interrupts get serviced quicker, and I've only seen one incident in 2 years that pegged all 4 cores. I won't willingly go back to anything less than 4 cores. Surfing the web is actually pleasant with all that extra power. Since the Q8200 doesn't have the VT-x switch to turn on, I'm trying to learn how to use Virtual Box. Maybe I can keep all 4 cores busy at the same time

 

[lucifer1306217]

this is not one eg. but i tried it with kaspersky running scan n took around 3-4 hrs to deal with 500 gb of data
i donot deny that it would do multitasking by running 2 simultaneous processes but it never ever increased performance or distributed work under 4 cores, its intel failure just to put some transistor club it make a one processors which do not have any interconnnection in between n blamming on software to be prepared to take advantage, in reality processor should be intelligent to deide work on all 4 cores
correct me if iam wrong

 

[Markfw]

this is not one eg. but i tried it with kaspersky running scan n took around 3-4 hrs to deal with 500 gb of data
i donot deny that it would do multitasking by running 2 simultaneous processes but it never ever increased performance or distributed work under 4 cores, its intel failure just to put some transistor club it make a one processors which do not have any interconnnection in between n blamming on software to be prepared to take advantage, in reality processor should be intelligent to deide work on all 4 cores
correct me if iam wrong

Yes, you are wrong. Software must use the cores. Hardware can not make that happen.

 

[rootz91]

ah, finally, found this kind of thread
gonna tell my confused friend soon, he can never make his mind between dual and quad...

 

[beginner99]

AMD is the value king, Intel is the performance king. PERIOD.

Sadly this is also not true anymore. My parents needed a new PC and i wanted to give Llano a chance. But at least here, Llano mobos are more expensive than H67 and especially H61.

An i3-2100 is almost double the speed in single-threaded performance and doesn't even lose all multi-threaded benchmarks (compared to fastest Llano...)
The GPU is of course way better in Llano but does a office and web user need it? No, HD 2000 is enough for that IMHO.

Even though this thread is old I would still prefer a dual core with faster single threaded performance over a quad for a typical office and web user.

 

[wtfbollos]

this thread can be unstickyed now eh?, everyone's on quad? (wtf you're not??)

someone start a Eight-core or Quad-core ? Which one do I pick ?

 

[trollolo]

this thread can be unstickyed now eh?, everyone's on quad? (wtf you're not??)

someone start a Eight-core or Quad-core ? Which one do I pick ?

my laptop is on a intel core i5 450m, 2 X 2.4ghz.

and did i hear someone mentioning an OC version of a desktop i3?

 

[Maximilian]

this thread can be unstickyed now eh?, everyone's on quad? (wtf you're not??)

someone start a Eight-core or Quad-core ? Which one do I pick ?

Front seat back seat which seat do i taaaake, ugh hate that fking song. Your post reminded me of it.

Yeah this thread could use an update, i don't think an 8800GT and C2D can handle any game out there anymore. Dual vs quad is still relevant though since the i3's are dual core's but with HT can beat the AMD quads sometimes.

 

[paulelliott]

hi! glad being here!

 

[Costas Athan]

As time passes multi-threading will be more common and more efficient. Furthermore, there are times you run many apps simultaneously and that's another situation you can see benefits from a multicore processor.

So for me the answer is quad. Moreover I don't think we'll get many new dual core CPUs in the future. The trend is to add more cores.

 

[T_Yamamoto]

in the year 2100, 16 core desktop PCs will be the standard.

LOL

 

[Costas Athan]

in the year 2100, 16 core desktop PCs will be the standard.

LOL

I don't know about 16 cores, but 8 cores are expected a lot sooner for desktop CPUs (2013 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haswell_%28microarchitecture%29)

edit: And if I'm not mistaken the AMD Bulldozer will have also CPUs 8 cores but I'm not sure when they are scheduled for release.

 

[gmaster456]

I run a Q8200 which I'm very happy with. Doesn't matter whether your game (I don't play, sorry) uses 1 or 2 cores; there's still an operating system underneath which still requires attention. When you've got CPUs to throw around, TCP/IP is immediately serviced, post-IO interrupts get serviced quicker, and I've only seen one incident in 2 years that pegged all 4 cores. I won't willingly go back to anything less than 4 cores. Surfing the web is actually pleasant with all that extra power. Since the Q8200 doesn't have the VT-x switch to turn on, I'm trying to learn how to use Virtual Box. Maybe I can keep all 4 cores busy at the same time

A quad is pretty much a must for running Multiple VM's.

 

[mimic58]

The Hex core ofcourse, Quads are so last year , hell Even hex cores out of date now you really want the 8 core bulldozer

 

[sangyup81]

The Hex core ofcourse, Quads are so last year , hell Even hex cores out of date now you really want the 8 core bulldozer

That's weak yo. Get the 16 core Interlagos in a 4 CPU setup! ()