yh125d said: "You have alot to learn, young grasshopper. In the future, when most games will be bringing a C2D to its knees, those games will all be quad threaded, which will essentially DOUBLE the power of the CPU. So yes, a quad *will* last longer before it's obsolete"
cusideabelincoln said::
"Nightsilencer: Go look at some GTA4 benchmarks. A cheaper Phenom processor smokes the likes of an E8400."
LoneNinja said::
"As far as the debate with Quad vs Duel I agree that the Quad will last longer than a duel core. Sure by the time the C2D is brought to its knees the C2Q won't fair much better, but it'll still be fighting. Look at AMD's K8, at one time the Athlon X2 was much more expensive and offered few performance gains. Look at it now though, the X2 is still a decent budget chip while the single core Athlon/Sempron are basically gone and unable to compete."
To all of you, take good look at this:
http://www.pcgameshardware.com..._13_processors/?page=2
Do you see the E8400 being SMOKED by any quad core? Especially the mentioned Phenom? I sure don't!
Plus, what you see here is the QX getting 38FPS OVERCLOCKED, and the E8400 gets 28 @ STOCK speeds! Quads are nowhere near the double perfomance of a fast Dual core. There's nothing to warrant getting a Quad core over a dual for gaming.
bruceyg said: [B]
"II can play games with downloading and other applications running at background. I wasn't able to do that with my E4300 OCed to 3Ghz. The file decompression time of WinRAR is cut in almost the half. People are not fools, this chip has the most 5egg reviews at newegg."
I'm not sure what you mean, but I can play games, download and have applications running on the background as well with my E8400. But, IF OF COURSE you want to game while rendering stuff, converting movies or any other demanding tasks, of course a Quad will be better. But that's only if you
MULTITASK HEAVILY. Most of us just want to play the game. You should have known better, because Duos and Quads have slightly different purposes, and it's all about multitasking. A Quad doesn't bring a significat benefit over anything else.
Another thing to all of you "gurus" is, games won't have a defined set of thread number. This means that a games won't spwan 4 threads right of the box, multithreading is all about scalability, so if it detects a dual core, it will spawn 2 threads, a Quad it will spawn 4 threads, and so on.
Another thing, to the guy who mentioned the X2's and the Athlons/semprons, you are talking about DIFFERENT architectures/technologies. Plus, name ONE SINGLE game a single core Athlon 64 3500+ for example, can't run nowadays. And when the X2's came out, back in 2005, was there even a single game that was multithreaded? Of course not! There's why the performance was so similar.
I know what I'm talking about when I say that architecture IS THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR of CPU performance. You can preach Quad over Dual all you want, just don't go crying when you see your beloved Quads crawling when Duos start to do the same.
But don't worry, Core 2 architecture (Duo or Quad) will be viable for a few years to come. Get a Duo, get a Quad, it will make no difference when the technology behind these CPUs is not sufficient. Tell yourself whatever you want, but there's no other way around this.
Facebook
Twitter