Quad vs. Dual

[solidsnizzle]

I have the choice of buying a Core 2 duo E6750 (2.66GHz) or a Q6600 Quad Core (2.4Ghz). Considering that Quad is basicley 4 cores running at 2.4Ghz each. I just wanted to know what would be the overall better decision ?? More cores slow speed (less support) or higher speed less cores ?? (better support)

I overall am gunna run windows vista and i will be playing some CPU/GPU hungry games. I am also getting a 8800GTS. So CPU is ma main question

Also whats up with those new looking boxed intel core 2 duo with 1066Mhz vs. the plain looking 1333Mhz CPu's ??? Why are the ones with lesser FBS or FSB more expensive ???

 

[firewolfsm]

It depends on how long you want to keep the processor and if you run any Quad programs right now.

 

[ethugholla]

Get the quad. Although some will argue that the E6750 has more overclockability, WHEN games that can use 4 cores come out, having those two extra cores will definitely be the deciding factor.

If I were in your shoes, I would just buy an E2160. Both processors you're looking at, in my opinion, are overkill. I'm a sucker for saving money.

 

[Jaskalas]

Depends on how long you intend to keep it. Certainly in the next two years you will find enough games that support 4 cores to make it worth having.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Depends on how long you intend to keep it. Certainly in the next two years you will find enough games that support 4 cores to make it worth having.

I would agree that in 2 years we should see quite a few games support 4 cores. But remember that we still have no idea how efficiently they will use them yet. Writing parallel threads is a fairly new thing for game developers...
For example, what if they use core 0 @ 50%, core 1 @40%, and cores 2&3 @30% each...
Would the app end up being faster than on a higher clocked dual core when both of those are working @80-90%?
Frankly I don't know, and I don't think anyone else can say either until the apps start showing up...

 

[omeganot]

Originally posted by: solidsnizzle
Considering that Quad is basicley 4 cores running at 2.4Ghz each. I just wanted to know what would be the overall better decision ??

Actually, it's 4 cores running at 600Mhz each. You can see this on a BIOS POST.

 

[JAG87]

Originally posted by: omeganot

Originally posted by: solidsnizzle
Considering that Quad is basicley 4 cores running at 2.4Ghz each. I just wanted to know what would be the overall better decision ??

Actually, it's 4 cores running at 600Mhz each. You can see this on a BIOS POST.

go sit in the corner. you are not allowed to talk anymore.

 

[The-Noid]

Originally posted by: omeganot

Originally posted by: solidsnizzle
Considering that Quad is basicley 4 cores running at 2.4Ghz each. I just wanted to know what would be the overall better decision ??

Actually, it's 4 cores running at 600Mhz each. You can see this on a BIOS POST.

Incorrect it is 4x2.4 ghz.

 

[Munky]

I would go with the dual core, unless you only upgrade your PC every 3 or more years. By the time it's actually worthwhile to have 4 cores for gaming, most people here would upgrade at least once to a newer platform in the future. The same thing happened when AMD came out with the dual cores, many people jumped on the bandwagon, including me, but up to this day only a few games put multiple cores to good use, and by now many of those people have switched to an Intel platform.

 

[jeffw2767602]

4 > 2
weeeeeeeeeeee

 

[Captante]

I'd go with the quad-core.

 

[Nurn]

I too cast my vote for the E2160 with an easy overclock to 3.2