Anyone can help me understand why i should go with a Quad over a Duo?

[AndyD2k]

These charts make me question why I'm specing a machine with a q6600

http://www.hothardware.com/art...rmance_Preview/?page=9

 

[MarcVenice]

Depends on what you do, if you use apps that can take advantage of all 4 cores, then you should go qaudcore. If you don't, then often a faster clocked dualcore will be the better CPU for you. If you can overclock however, then you should buy a q6600 and run it at 3ghz, then you'll get high clockspeeds and 4 cores.

 

[street carp]

I chose quad core for running mutiple apps at the same time. If I was just into gaming maybe I'd have ordered an E6750.

 

[supr]

Depends totally on what you are doing.

If you rendering videos and editing then go for quad.
If you are just gaming and surfing the web go for dual. Most games are not programmed to take advantage of four cores yet (Crysis and Unreal 3 I think not sure)

Anyway the prices for quad will go down soon with the launch of Penryn so I would suggest wait a little longer.

Thats my 2 cents.

 

[Glavinsolo]

Andy

Right now the apps that take advantage are mostly video/rendering etc.

The future games will be multithreaded including quad.

 

[kmmatney]

If you overclock, then there are lots of ways to go. Most games don't take advantage of 4 cores, so the overall speed will be determined by the cpu clock speed (and even more so by the video card). My cheap processorm, when overclocked, is much better than the Q6600 for 99+% of the games out there.

My recommendation is to either go with a Quad and overclock to 3.0 Ghz (it will do this easily with stock heatsink), or to go cheaper with an E21XX series cpu, overclock to near 3.0 Ghz, and spend the money you save on a better video card.

 

[AndyD2k]

Thanks guys. I don't think I really have a real need for it except for future proofing my new build. But wasn't Crysis (and UT3 I think) supposed to be multithreaded? I didn't assume duos were performing better simply because it was a higher clock

kmmatney, I would be too concerned about temps. I have a small room and adding anything that produces even more heat than my current setup would be something I would prefer to avoid. I would assume that overclocking would add another 10C or so. I don't want idle temps to be anymore than 45 (ideally below 40)

 

[aka1nas]

Originally posted by: AndyD2k
Thanks guys. I don't think I really have a real need for it except for future proofing my new build. But wasn't Crysis (and UT3 I think) supposed to be multithreaded? I didn't assume duos were performing better simply because it was a higher clock

kmmatney, I would be too concerned about temps. I have a small room and adding anything that produces even more heat than my current setup would be something I would prefer to avoid. I would assume that overclocking would add another 10C or so. I don't want idle temps to be anymore than 45 (ideally below 40)

Sounds like you don't want a Quad then. My Q6600 idles at 55C and gets into the 70s under load with a Tuniq.

Even multithreaded apps won't necessarily take advantage of a quad depending on how they were programmed. If the developers just split up work into two separate threads and called it a day, you won't see a whole lot of improvement going from dual core to quad core for that app.

 

[D13S3L]

I went with the q6600 for the future-proofing aspect. It overclocks well and gives you that intangible piece of mind that when the truly multi-threaded apps come out, you'll be sitting pretty.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: AndyD2k
Thanks guys. I don't think I really have a real need for it except for future proofing my new build. But wasn't Crysis (and UT3 I think) supposed to be multithreaded?

Crysis will be multithreaded, the developer has promised that multiple times. You've been playing the demo, which isn't multithreaded. That comparison chart that you linked was also of the demo, not the game you'll be able to buy soon.

 

[MadScientist]

Read the whole article if you have the time. Link

 

[videogames101]

because crysis scales awesomely with quad-cores!

 

[acole1]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: AndyD2k
Thanks guys. I don't think I really have a real need for it except for future proofing my new build. But wasn't Crysis (and UT3 I think) supposed to be multithreaded?

Crysis will be multithreaded, the developer has promised that multiple times. You've been playing the demo, which isn't multithreaded. That comparison chart that you linked was also of the demo, not the game you'll be able to buy soon.

Just FYI...

The game is already out

and

It uses quad's nicely

 

[Glavinsolo]

Check this link out kind of interesting

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000942.html

 

[balane]

How high can a 6850 be overclocked? Will it be faster than a quad core, clock for clock? I run my Q6600 at 3.4 or 3.2GHz.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Glavinsolo
Check this link out kind of interesting

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000942.html

From that link:

Why look at today's programs performance with tomorrow's cpu setups? Surely after time programs will be written to take advantage of multiple cores. Remember there was a time when "no user of a pc" would need more than 637k of RAM

And I would just like to say that I used to tell people "If you only game, you have no need for a dual-core." Well, I was right at that time. But what if that same person still has that same system? Hopefully, they've already put a dual-core CPU in it, but if they haven't, they'd be wishing that they had, since just about every game available these days is at least somewhat multi-threaded, and will benefit greatly even from two slower cores.

 

[darkxknight]

just buy what you need to right now. if im not mistaken, most boards that use 775 accept penryns as well so upgrading wont be a complete upgrade. the way i see it, so yea, future games need to use more cores, but sooner or later, we'll be saying "that game needs to utilize 8 cores!!! must get octo core!!". so just upgrade as you go along. theres no such thing as "future proofing" when it comes to computer hardware.

 

[Munky]

Plenty of games are already multithreaded, but that doesn't mean you'll see any benefit from a quad core. Firstly, if a thread is not computationally intensive, there's nothing stopping a particular cpu core from running multiple threads without a performance hit. Secondly, as you increase the graphics settings and resolution, the stress increases on the video card, and the cpu plays an ever decreasing role in the overall performance. Thirdly, I see no reason to do crazy multitasking like encoding 2 videos while running a game, because all those apps still share resources like system memory and hard disks, so you'll still see a performance drop in a game which has to contend for resources with other apps.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: acole1

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: AndyD2k
Thanks guys. I don't think I really have a real need for it except for future proofing my new build. But wasn't Crysis (and UT3 I think) supposed to be multithreaded?

Crysis will be multithreaded, the developer has promised that multiple times. You've been playing the demo, which isn't multithreaded. That comparison chart that you linked was also of the demo, not the game you'll be able to buy soon.

Just FYI...

The game is already out

and

It uses quad's nicely

No it doesn't, read the update:

EDIT: When I originally published this article and looked at the graph of the processor performance capture my first impression was that Crysis was utilizing all four cores - which is true. Crysis is passing instructions to all four cores but not maximizing their ability to handle instructions concurrently. All four cores look busy in the graph but the reality of it is that they are basically operating as a single-core and taking turns. In it's current state Crysis does not take full advantage of multi-core processing. Thanks go out to the readers who pointed this out.

 

[secretanchitman]

just get a quad now, and overclock it to 3.0-3.2Ghz. you'll be fine for many years...really.

with the quads so cheap, theres no reason to not get one, unless you are holding out for 45nm ones...

 

[taltamir]

future proofing a computer is pointless... when the future arrive you can upgrade for less then the money you save by not being an early adopter. And you are gurenteed to get your money's worth (since it is not potential benefits, but already materialized benefits).

Encoding video = maxes out one core
Encoding audio = maxes out one core
Typical video game = uses most of one core, if it maxes it then a second core can take care of all other background tasks providing slight improvements.
Antivirus scanning = maxes out one core
Decompressing / compressing a file = maxes out one core.
Background processess = use a few percent of one core.

So basically figure, how do I use this machine. If you typically encode a video/audio file while compressing rars and playing a game at the same time then you absolutely NEED quad core.

Crysis is the only game out there that will use a quad core, and even then, two cores at 50% more speed will do nicely. Every other game will be running FASTER on a dual core (assuming that they are really 50% higher clocked then a quad core)... if you ofcourse compare the 1000$ 3ghz quad core to a 3ghz dual core the quad is always better... but that is not a realistic comparison for most people.

I would recommend buying a dual core now for under 200$. And buying a quad core for under 200$ in a year to replace it. (if at all, maybe quad cores will still not be very useful a year from now... but they probably will)