Quad core or dual core

[jklmt]

Basically, I just want to know if I will see a big difference between a quad or dual core cpu at 3.0ghz(9650 vs. 8400), granted both not OC'd?? Does a quad pump the data faster b/c it has more cores??

 

[error8]

It depends on what you're doing. If gaming is your first priority, then a quad doesn't worth it right now, since 99% of the games out there only use 2 cores at the most. There are other programs though, that really take advantage of all 4 cores. So it all comes down to what will you be using your PC for.

 

[ShadowFlareX]

If you're mainly gaming, then the dual core is for you.

If your main is video editting, encoding, 3D rendering (eg. 3D Studio Max, Maya), then you'll benefit from quad core.

Alot of programs/games have been coded/optimized with 2 cores, while others can make use of all 4 cores. So a game that has been coded for 2 cores and you have a quad core, then there's virtually no difference/gain over a dual core with the same speed.

 

[VulcanX]

Well the quad core is better for any video tools as such, even Autocad etc would benefit more from the Quad than the Core 2, but the 45nm Core 2's are pretty decent even standard, and the Phenoms i dont know too much about so dont want to comment

 

[jklmt]

This is why I ask.

I'm a trader and wantt a new system that will handle all my app's., I"m in chat room powered by omnovia w/ a live video feed. I have a direct access system being fed through a cable network(cablevision 15mbps) and have several other app's opened including, I"M's, live news wire, skype, and sometimes excell and word.

Is it appropiate for me to have say Q6600 or would 9450 be a better choice.

thinking this:

MOBO: nvidia 750i
RAM: 4g DDR2 pc6400
will timings matter for me?

VIDEO: 2-8400gs card for 4 lcd support
PSU: 420wtt

CPU: Q6600 or 9450?
Will cpu matter for me

O/S: thinking of staying w/ XP, what advantages does VISAT have

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Yes with that level of multi-tasking a quad would be the way to go

Q6600 vs Q9450 is price vs performance, if your on a tight budget the Q6600 is the answer. But if hardware budget is not as important the Q9450 will be a little faster, save energy and run cooler.

I wouldn't recommend the 750i mobo its old tech and maynot even support a Q9450, and you don't need SLI to run two GPU's for your purpose. I would look at a P35 or newer chipset board with two phsical PCI-E 16x slots, doesn't need to support SLI.

And 4gb or pc6400 seems to be the sweet spot these days, but be aware if you stay with XP you will only be able to see and access 3.5gb or less. If you want to fully utilize 4gb or more you have to have a 64bit OS, the best of which is Vista x64. There is a x64 version of XP but it is not nearly as polished or supported by hardware vendors as Vista x64

 

[imported_Woody]

To add a comment to the above post....

Considering how cheap DDR2 is these days it's worth installing 4GB even on 32 bit Vista just to get the the 3.3-3.5GB that you'll actually see.

Vista uses all the RAM it can get and I noticed not only did the Vista footprint jump after I upgraded from 2GB to 4GB but it just seemed to run smoother.

I don't personally think it's worth the hassle of Vista 64 on a 4GB system. After all the extra overhead from a 64 bit OS you won't see much more memory anyway.

If you plan to run more than 4GB....definitely go with a 64 bit OS.

 

[jklmt]

Thanks guys...you're better help than system builders (dell, hp, ibuypower, etc). I wonder if the tech reps of teses compnaies know anytihng. If it weren't for Anandtech forums I would be powering a very overpriced piece of garbage ot things I just don't need. So, i bug thnk you to all have ansered my posts trough these past weeks...

 

[n7]

No OCing?

Get a Q6600/6700 or Q9300.

2x2 GB RAM at least, & i do personally suggest Vista x64 for the simply fact that it doesn't limit you in the future.
Even if you go XP x86 or Vista x86, i do agree, still get 2x2 GB RAM.
Pretty much anything is fine for stock speeds, though i'd suggest some Mushkin EM2-6400/HP2-6400, since if you have any confusion setting it up, they'll explain exactly how to set it up on their forums if you post & ask

A couple HD 3450/3650s would handle your four displays.
Just get a P35 or better mobo that handles Crossfire (though you'll be running with it disabled).

 

[jklmt]

Why 2x2 g's of Ram not 4x1g???

 

[Aisengard]

2x2GB is easier to overclock.

 

[imported_Woody]

It's hard to say for sure if 2x2GB would be easier to overclock than 4x1GB, probably not. There are too many variables but typically the more memory you cram on a single stick the more heat it will generate and therefore the less it will overclock. By that logic 4x1GB would work better.

On the other hand, you don't need to overclock RAM much anyway and this isn't much of an issue. This takes me back to my original argument that you should go with what's cheaper. You may also want to consider upgrade capability if you ever plan to run more than 4GB and a 64bit OS.

 

[Aisengard]

But having two sticks instead of four increases the space between the sticks.

Also, I've read that motherboards have more trouble powering 4 sticks of RAM than 2.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
2x2GB is easier to overclock.

+1 but it plays more with 1T timings then 2T timings thats why. :T

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: jklmt
Why 2x2 g's of Ram not 4x1g???

Even if you don't plan on overclocking your CPU, two sticks of RAM are less stress on the motherboard, and more importantly, allows you to later upgrade to 8GB of RAM, which you'll be wanting sometime in the not too distance future. And if you do decide to overclock, it's much easier to overclock with only two sticks of RAM.

 

[jklmt]

GUYS GUYS GUYS...

I never plan on overclocking...it's a work station, what be the point of over clocking a work station. However. are you saying operating sytems are moving to 64 bit...

 

[rbk123]

Originally posted by: jklmt
GUYS GUYS GUYS...

I never plan on overclocking...it's a work station, what be the point of over clocking a work station.

Um, a faster workstation for free?

 

[amenx]

I know of a poster on another board, an extreme overclocker, who OC's his 45nm chip to the higher part of the 5ghz range. He uses one 512mb stick to reach the highest levels and any more RAM sticks limits his OC.

 

[jesterb84]

Originally posted by: jklmt
GUYS GUYS GUYS...

I never plan on overclocking...it's a work station, what be the point of over clocking a work station. However. are you saying operating sytems are moving to 64 bit...

If I understand correctly, many people are moving to 64-bit OSes such as Vista 64 to take advantage of 4GB+ RAM. In your previous post, you listed around 5+ apps maybe and overtime, newer versions of these apps will require additional RAM and therefore memory requirements will increase exponentially. You may find yourself backed against the 3.2-3.5GB memory barrier pretty soon.

For me, I switched to Vista 64 (from Vista 32) and the additional speed and stability from the 64-bit OS makes me wonder why I didn't switch earlier. I'm not sure of what additional overhead was stated earlier but I sure don't feel any. In addition, every last one of my 32-bit apps and games work flawlessly as if they were on a 32-bit OS.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: jesterb84

Originally posted by: jklmt
GUYS GUYS GUYS...

I never plan on overclocking...it's a work station, what be the point of over clocking a work station. However. are you saying operating sytems are moving to 64 bit...

If I understand correctly, many people are moving to 64-bit OSes such as Vista 64 to take advantage of 4GB+ RAM. In your previous post, you listed around 5+ apps maybe and overtime, newer versions of these apps will require additional RAM and therefore memory requirements will increase exponentially. You may find yourself backed against the 3.2-3.5GB memory barrier pretty soon.

For me, I switched to Vista 64 (from Vista 32) and the additional speed and stability from the 64-bit OS makes me wonder why I didn't switch earlier. I'm not sure of what additional overhead was stated earlier but I sure don't feel any. In addition, every last one of my 32-bit apps and games work flawlessly as if they were on a 32-bit OS.

ive actually had problems with 64bit running the older software. :\

Also, depending on the workstation and enviorment, and how well you stress test the machine, i dont see anything wrong with slight overclocking. Or even undervolting.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: Woody
It's hard to say for sure if 2x2GB would be easier to overclock than 4x1GB, probably not. There are too many variables but typically the more memory you cram on a single stick the more heat it will generate and therefore the less it will overclock. By that logic 4x1GB would work better.

On the other hand, you don't need to overclock RAM much anyway and this isn't much of an issue. This takes me back to my original argument that you should go with what's cheaper. You may also want to consider upgrade capability if you ever plan to run more than 4GB and a 64bit OS.

I've never tried oc'ing with more than 2 sticks, but from what others have said, 2x2 is much easier to OC than 4x1. 4 sticks put added stress on the mch.

@OP don't oc this machine if you need it to be 100% stable 24/7. I could do it, aigo could do it, but we don't have our job riding on doing it right AND we have quite a bit of quad overclocking experience. Get a cheaper toy to learn oc'ing on first if you want to oc then go after this later.

 

[PianoMan]

Originally posted by: jklmt
GUYS GUYS GUYS...

I never plan on overclocking...it's a work station, what be the point of over clocking a work station. However. are you saying operating sytems are moving to 64 bit...

Even if you're not into overclocking, 2x2GB should be the way to go. Less sticks to drive, faster command rate, and room to grow later on.

Eventually, I'm sure we'll move to 64-bit OSes, but right now it doesn't seem a good idea for you - you probably want a box that works with most everything you throw at it and with less fuss as possible.

64-bit will indeed get you more, but I'm not sure if the drivers/programs you plan on using are fully compatible with a 64-bit OS. Mebbe someone with more experience with this can elaborate.

 

[VirtualLarry]

If this is a work system that you depend on, then I would suggest not overclocking it. Even the minute risk of data-corruption isn't worth it.

I overclock my systems balls-to-the-wall, but then again I don't depend on them for a paycheck. They are stable 24/7 for months at a time, but rarely, occasionally, there are problems. I just had a spontainous reboot the other night for no reason, and a few days ago the screen went black and the system hung, when I attempted to plug in a usb device. Yet the system had been stable with uptimes in the month+ range.

 

[imported_Woody]

Originally posted by: jesterb84.......I'm not sure of what additional overhead was stated earlier but I sure don't feel any.....

The "overhead" is the additional memory footprint that 64 bit applications need for the simple fact of being 64 bit instead of 32 bit. This additional memory will vary but you could expect the OS to need about 10-20% more memory for the exact same configuration as the 32 bit version would. This isn't a deterrent, just something to be aware of if you are only using 4GB in the first place since your available extra memory won't be significantly different between the 32bit and 64bit OS in a 4GB system despite the "missing memory" of the 32 bit setup.

 

[jdkick]

No issues with Vista x64 over here. My last build was extremely smooth and after some minor customizations the OS uses only ~400MB of available memory at idle. I also find WoW64 to work quite well as it runs anything 32-bit i've thrown at it with ease. Of course YMMV re: application compatibility, as aigo mentioned.

IMO, since your buying a CPU with a 64-bit instruction set and 4GB of memory I would lean towards Vista x64.