Should I go for 2 or 4 cores for an all around CPU?

[BrightCandle]

The price difference is pretty small. Most apps and games still don't utilise 4 cores well but they are starting to become more parallel. If the price difference was larger I might say otherwise but really it should be 4 cores today.

 

[Puppies04]

The price difference is pretty small. Most apps and games still don't utilise 4 cores well but they are starting to become more parallel. If the price difference was larger I might say otherwise but really it should be 4 cores today.

Doesn't really matter if the programs you use can only utilise 1 or 2 cores. If you are running 2 or more of them at the same time then you will benefit from the extra cores. I would guess that the OPs video editing program is going to benefit the most moving up from a dual core to a quad core though.

 

[Magic Carpet]

Can't wait to see quad Celerons @ $70

 

[Tintan]

Go with 4 cores + SDD and you are good to go.

 

[soccerballtux]

I guess all those SSD sales were a con then lol. Do you have a SSD? The performance in general tasks is night and day compared to a HDD, doesnt matter if you have 256GB of RAM.

that's actually not true.
If you had 256 GB of ram then every program you have installed would be cached thanks to Windows Vista/7's aggressive prefetcher.
Since RAM faster than SSD, it would be faster.

 

[soccerballtux]

Can't wait to see quad Celerons @ $70

probably won't happen because then nobody will need a new computer.

Most people haven't figured out they just need more RAM, nobody needs a new CPU if they have a Core 2 Duo series or newer.

 

[Magic Carpet]

that's actually not true.
If you had 256 GB of ram then every program you have installed would be cached thanks to Windows Vista/7's aggressive prefetcher.
Since RAM faster than SSD, it would be faster.

I wonder, how long would it take to cache everything back to ram, especially on a slow hard drive. Every boot.

probably won't happen because then nobody will need a new computer.

Probably, considering that $35-50 G5x0 takes care of general needs, quite easily.

Most people haven't figured out they just need more RAM, nobody needs a new CPU if they have a Core 2 Duo series or newer.

Problem is, a lot of older Conroe based computers have max ram limitations. And that DDR1/DDR2 upgrade would be more expensive today. And those Core 2 Quad's consume too much power (especially idle) to be a worthy upgrade. On the other hand, a cheap (under $100) 1155 true quad could be a winner. There could be cheaper quads... if somebody could actually compete with Intel.

 

[fffblackmage]

that's actually not true.
If you had 256 GB of ram then every program you have installed would be cached thanks to Windows Vista/7's aggressive prefetcher.
Since RAM faster than SSD, it would be faster.

I wonder, how long would it take to cache everything back to ram, especially on a slow hard drive. Every boot.

But do most people shut down their computers daily? I haven't done a shut down for at least a month now (though I should just to update my antivirus...). I've been using S4 sleep, but if you use S3 sleep, everything stays in the ram.

 

[Hubb1e]

Power user 4 cores. Casual user 2 cores is fine. If you video edit family videos a few times a year 2 cores works fine. SSD always. Even sleep feels faster with an SSD. That HD gets hit even coming out of sleep.

 

[2is]

But do most people shut down their computers daily? I haven't done a shut down for at least a month now (though I should just to update my antivirus...). I've been using S4 sleep, but if you use S3 sleep, everything stays in the ram.

With the exception of my home server which is also a media server, I shut down my computers. Theres no reason for me to leave them on. Some people claim on/off cycles are bad for hardware. Perhaps that's true but I have never experienced an issue. I have however experienced the negative effects of keeping them on. Dust builds up faster, room is warmer then it needs to be, and of course power. Absolutely no reason for me to donate an additional few $$$ to my power utility for no good reason.

Besides, Win7+SSD boots quite fast.

 

[Ferzerp]

With the exception of my home server which is also a media server, I shut down my computers. Theres no reason for me to leave them on. Some people claim on/off cycles are bad for hardware. Perhaps that's true but I have never experienced an issue. I have however experienced the negative effects of keeping them on. Dust builds up faster, room is warmer then it needs to be, and of course power. Absolutely no reason for me to donate an additional few $$$ to my power utility for no good reason.

Besides, Win7+SSD boots quite fast.

Since my gaming desktop also had my tuner for ages, I left it on 24x7. It's gone through a few iterations, but I checked the drives in my striped array last night and they had 660 days of powered on time. Luckily, every day it gets turned on now, it gets backed up.

 

[OBLAMA2009]

one of the computers in my house has a pentium 6300 (?) that i got for $50 with board and its still a pretty good machine, so im sure dual core would be fine, esp if you find a good deal. if you dont find a deal, since foar coars is only $150(?) dats what i would gofer

 

[andg]

Please note you're asking this question in forum full of CPU enthusiasts, where the average member probably have something like a i7 2600k. They will of course suggest you to get a quad core, as they need to justify their own purchase.

But really, if you're on a budget, I am 100% certain that a dual core + SSD will give you a significantly faster feeling system. The system will boot much faster, applications and games will start faster. The only thing that would take more time would be things like ecoding/rendering/compiling code.

If money is no issue, sure, get a quad core, but really, getting a SSD should be priority #1.

 

[tweakboy]

Well gaming wise 4 core , and video editing or audio production DAW.


Get 4 core, go forward in life, 2 core is soo 2006 lol

 

[Magic Carpet]

Get 4 core, go forward in life, 2 core is soo 2006 lol

Old but capable

 

[Yuriman]

Old but capable

2012 says "hi" to 2006.

Fairly impressive overclock on that chip, but a modern CPU 4x+ faster in that bench.

 

[Magic Carpet]

Yeah but remember, it's only a dual-core versus your quad. Re-run with 2 threads instead to see the actual IPC / etc improvements. Ideally, clock down to 2.9 as well

EDIT: That chip can run 3.6 but... for stability reasons, I run it where it is now.


And here is a Sandy Bridge G530:

 

[Yuriman]

Doing some quick math, 6.32 x 2 = 12.64s estimated on 2 threads.

4.8/2.9 = 1.65, 12.64s * 1.65 = 20.92s.

So, theoretically Ivy Bridge with equal cores and clocks should get around 21 seconds where Allendale gets 28.5, which suggests about 35% improved IPC.

In theory.

 

[Vic Vega]

I have a dual core i5 I use for work and I hate it. I end up doing the majority of my work on the desktop in my signature. I would take a quad anything (Intel or AMD) over a dual core anything (Intel or AMD). People like to yap about lots of apps still being single threaded and in some cases dual threaded. Yes, that's absolutely true, but most operating systems have a fairly complex scheduler and know how to balance the workload well. Windows 7 does an awesome job, so even though you have a bunch of single and dual threaded apps Windows spreads the workload well.

The more cores the merrier.

 

[infoiltrator]

A dual core I5 is either 3 generations back or a mobile CPU.
For gaming an I3 2120 is very close to an AMD Phenom II 965 overclocked. The Ivy Bridge version should be faster.

For true multithreading four cores are better. Any of the I5 CPUs will "best" an overclocked 965 whether a "K" chip or not.

Do not know what you use in work. The client I am stuck with is atom based, usually does office well enough. Can not hande web pages with high demands. The work servers are a trial, slow, freeze ups, lock ups when overloaded.

Sigh, work for a nonprofit, hardware is in the "good enough" category budget woise.

 

[Hmoobphajej]

4 cores. There's no reason to limit yourself when you're video encoding. Also all around it's a better investment. You have the power to do heavier work load if you ever choose to and won't feel the need to upgrade for awhile.

 

[StarTech]

2 + SSD will give you the best return in terms of user speed experience on the $.

 

[poohbear]

Can u even find 2 cores anymore?? Sad the slow pace of development...

 

[dagamer34]

Video editing = MOAR COARZ. Seriously, it's one of the few tasks where throwing more CPU cores at the problem actually approaches a linear increase in speed. It's a no brainer.

 

[Hubb1e]

It all depends on how much video editing he's doing. If it is casual video editing once a month on windows movie maker then 2 cores is fine. For a productivity machine, 2 cores works just fine, just make sure to get your SSD in there. OP's workload sounded more like a productivity machine than a workstation.

And a dual core i5 is a mobile chip probably running at 2.5 ghz vs your 4 core at 4 ghz. That's a big difference between your work computer and your home computer. We're all assuming this guy is looking at the high end i3's that run at 3+ ghz with hyperthreading.