Quad Core or Duo?

Cravez

Hey all,

Im buying a new PC as the old one has kicked the bucket so to speak. And im decided whether should i get either:
1) Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4GHz Socket LGA775, 8MB

OR

2) Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 3.0GHz 1333Mhz Socket LGA775, 4MB

The PC will be geared towards gaming but which would you guys think would be better off getting in the long run?

TerrorFirmer

Long run Quad without a doubt, though the 6850 will hold the edge in games as of now.

Creamy Goodness

HavoK wrote: »

Long run Quad without a doubt, though the 6850 will hold the edge in games as of now.

is the only reason for this would be that games aren't coded for multi core processors?

uberpixie

Michael Cravez wrote: »

Hey all,

Im buying a new PC as the old one has kicked the bucket so to speak. And im decided whether should i get either:
1) Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4GHz Socket LGA775, 8MB

OR

2) Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 3.0GHz 1333Mhz Socket LGA775, 4MB

The PC will be geared towards gaming but which would you guys think would be better off getting in the long run?

No one really knows:D.

I bought a quad a while ago on the basis that games are already using dualcore, any Xbox360 port is def dual core optimised from the get go,the quad may pay off in the future if game devs start optimising for it properly but that prob won't happen until someone figures out a use for the third core in the Xbox 360.
(lets face it console gaming has really pushed dual core gaming on the pc).

Now the biggest issue that you will have with a quad is that they run a little hotter than a dualie: you will need to get a half dacent cooler such as a Thermalright Ultra 120mm Extreme:
http://www.thermalright.com/a_page/main_product_ultra120_extreme.htm

Also try to get the newer version of the quad, the one with the "go" steppings as they are cooler than the older "B3" revision and overclock much higher if you are into it.

The only realy advantage atm the quad has is if you are into multimedia and have the multi threaded apps to take advantage of a quad.

The dual core 3ghz is a good chip, it will run much cooler than the quad and should in theory be a bit faster in games. It also overclocks on air very well. However at high res a 2.4Ghz quad and a 3.0Ghz perform very similarly.

Most games are bottlenecked by the graphics card not the cpu or the number of cores. so you could really argue in favour of getting a cheaper cpu and spending the money on a better graphics card.

All in all go with what ever you feel more comfortable with, both will perform well in any of the current games.

TerrorFirmer

Cremo wrote: »

is the only reason for this would be that games aren't coded for multi core processors?

Yes, even games that technically have support for more then 2 cores, the difference would be almost completely negligible. Some games aren't even dual core optimized, even within new releases. E6850 stock would be much faster then Q6600 stock, though, that's like comparing a fast car and a really fast car. In reality, the graphics card will limit you far sooner then either processor will. The only other thing is that a Quad will run much hotter as well. But all in all, purchasing new, given the performance of both processors even at lower clocks, the Quad makes good sense. Either is a good purchase.

The B3 Quads are close to Pentium 4 Prescotts in terms of TDP, 105W compared to 115 for the high spec P4s. The G0 is a little better at 95W.

Still, that's only ~25W per core, the Prescott ate 115 watts to power one!

RoyalMarine

another way to look at it is how often do you upgrade or buy a new computer?

dual cores are being used to they're needs at the moment.

quads are not. but they will. who knows when developers will start using the 4 cores. no one knows yet.

but if you buy quads now, then at least you wont need to upgrade in the future when you want something that can utisize quad cores.

although quads are expensive, in my opinion, if you dont want to be upgrading in say 3 or 4 years, then go with quads now.

but as mentioned already, dont skimp off on a decent graphics card. if your into gaming, this is where the real power is.

PogMoThoin

RoyalMarineComm wrote: »

but they will. who knows when developers will start using the 4 cores. no one knows yet.

:rolleyes: Alot sooner than you think
Linky

daveharnett

Michael Cravez wrote: »

2) Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 3.0GHz 1333Mhz Socket LGA775, 4MB

I'd recommend an E6750 over andE6850. I know that you might be scared of overclocking, but a 6750 can perform just as well as the 6850 with very little effort.

A quad core would be more future proof, but it's gonna take quite a while before games become bottlenecked by today's processors.

If you just want the machine for gaming/internet, i'd say go with the 6750 and put the monry you save into the graphics card.

RoyalMarine

hmmm 8 cores! benchmarks are amazing

Cravez

Cheers for the info guys. So Quad core is a good purchase for the future in mind but it might not run games properly currently?

Regarding cooling systems, would this is what ill be getting.

As regards what graphics card im getting would be a nVidia Geforce 8800GTX 768mb graphics card.

Im getting this mainboard: MSI P6N Diamond (im going for the full 8GB's of RAM as well)

So from those above, what would you recommend i should go for?

uberpixie

Michael Cravez wrote: »

Cheers for the info guys. So Quad core is a good purchase for the future in mind but it might not run games properly currently?

Quads run games just fine, it's just at most 2 cores are used and you have 2 spare cores scratching their bollix.

Michael Cravez wrote: »

Regarding cooling systems, would this is what ill be getting.

thats a link to a psu.

jesus_thats_gre

uberpixie wrote: »

Quads run games just fine, it's just at most 2 cores are used and you have 2 spare cores scratching their bollix.

This assuming that the games/engines are being specifically optimised for just 2 cores. Applications and alot of games (Source based for example) are being designed to be multi-threaded from the ground up. The benefit of this is that that the application will take advantage of whatever number of cores you have available - whether it be 2, 4 or 8.

Applications should scale in a relatively predictable manner as you double the amount of cores available. This is reflected quite clearly in the Intel benchmarks above. The same won't be quite through for games from what I can see though. The multi-threaded benchmarks that Valve released about a year ago show what potential performance gains could be achieved.

Some amount of crap is being spouted in this thread so far though.

uberpixie

jesus_thats_gre wrote: »

This assuming that the games/engines are being specifically optimised for just 2 cores. Applications and alot of games (Source based for example) are being designed to be multi-threaded from the ground up. The benefit of this is that that the application will take advantage of whatever number of cores you have available - whether it be 2, 4 or 8.

"For people that have been wondering for some time now when Valve is going to upgrade the Source engine to support multi-core cpu's (dual,quad etc). We can tell you they are upgrading the Source engine to be multi-threaded and all their existing HL2 engine based games will be upgraded to use it in the following months.

It will use two main threads: One thread will support the physics and game play and another will handle all of the graphics and 3d world affects. A dual core processor will really give you most of the advantage of this."

http://www.steamfriends.com/developmentnews/p2_articleid/781

The fact at the moment, mulitcore support is largely geared to dual core cpus.

Going by Valves steam survey results: 36.05% of their market use dual core, 61.03% use a single core and 2.92% use a quad.
http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html

Support for dual core is a long time coming, we are now at the stage where bargin bucket machines from oems are likely to have a dual core cpu. Give it another 2-3 years are we should gradually see a push towards a 4 core cpu being standard.

However at the moment multicore support will largely be dual core and remain dual core.
(which is fair enough looking at dual core CPUs market share...)

I own a quad, any game I have run so far has only stressed 2 out of 4 cores when playing a game. The other 2 cores do nothing.....

Crysis allegedly has quad support which I must look into:D.

The fact of the matter is: when playing games on a quad for now, 2 of the cores sit there doing nothing.

jesus_thats_gre wrote: »

Applications should scale in a relatively predictable manner as you double the amount of cores available. This is reflected quite clearly in the Intel benchmarks above. The same won't be quite through for games from what I can see though. The multi-threaded benchmarks that Valve released about a year ago show what potential performance gains could be achieved.

Some amount of crap is being spouted in this thread so far though.

This is all on the horizon for games. It is only mulitmedia apps that make proper use of a quad.

Quads do not yet have the market share to make it viable for most devs to properly support it.

Most devs are only beginning to get their head around making games that use 2 cores.

It will be another while yet before we start to see a game that supports a quad core fully.

In all honesty I must be only talking "a load of crap".

Go out and all buy quads lads, they run games much more ninja than a dualie.

*crosses fingers, hopes gullible people will buy quads, increase quad market share and devs will have to make games that support quads*

nibble

Something I haven't seen mentioned is that while many single applications don't use more than 1/2 threads, you will of course have a big advantage if you heavily multitask. Like for example playing a game while encoding a movie or browsing the net etc.

jesus_thats_gre

I am actually heart broken that Valve went with this option

Auvers

Michael Cravez wrote: »

As regards what graphics card im getting would be a nVidia Geforce 8800GTX 768mb graphics card.

If you are willing to blow €550 on a gfx card, I wouldn't bother with a GTX buy 2x 8800GTs and run them in SLi.

8800GT SLi review

TerrorFirmer

Why do you need 8gb of ram? That's an insane amount, will cost an awful lot and unless there's something you're not telling us, you won't even be able to use remotely anywhere near that much!

L31mr0d

Michael Cravez wrote: »

im going for the full 8GB's of RAM as well

why? You'd be wiser going for the fastest 4GB with the lowest timings rather than getting 8GB of RAM. Plus what will you be running that can utilize that much RAM?

To the OP, it all depends on when you plan to upgrade next. If you are going to buy this system now and not upgrade again until this time next year then get a Quad. If you will be upgrading your CPU again in 6 months, go for a dual core.

The key here is Ghz. A dual or single threaded app will work faster on a 3Ghz dual core then it will on a 2.6Ghz quad core. Only quad threaded apps will work faster on a lower clocked dual core, and even then you are limited by the bus speeds, so the benefits might not be that great.

I went for a quad, first because someone was selling it for a 3rd of what it was priced at the time and second because I won't be upgrading my CPU for at least a year. I can happily overclock as well as time goes on.

Where I building now though, and I had the intention of upgrading again mid next year, I'd get a cheap dual core, overclock it, then upgrade to a native quad when they become more mainstream and reduced in price