Dual core or quad?

[drajin]

I'm planning to buy a new rig in a few weeks

ASUS PQ5 Deluxe or Pro
Quad Core Q9550 or Duo E8500
HD4870

I'll only state these 3, as this is probably the only components that needs discussing.

My biggest dilemma is to choose betweem Q9550 (2.83GHz) or E8500 (3.16GHz). In my country (Malaysia), the price for Q9550 is almost double the price of E8500. I didn't include E8600 because the price is almost approaching Q9550.

Anyway, I'm gonna write the price in Malaysian Ringgit. I know you'll not familiar with, but gives a good numerical value. Each country may have different price range, but this is my situation. (* USD 1 = RM 3.3 roughly, but USD-RM rate is very dynamic)

Q9550 = RM 1130
Q9450 = RM 1100 (Less than $10 difference. No point take this one)
Q9400 = RM 890

E8600 = RM 910 (approaching Q9550 price, probably not gonna take this one)
E8500 = RM 650

As you can see, it's between Q9550 and E8500, or should I add the cheaper Quad core Q9400.

What I do with my PC? Basically I do all things, including heavy application, video encoding, and playing games. Another question, how much does Quad core affects gaming? I want a recommendation and a good reasons why that is recommended. I'm looking for more advise on performance rather than price.

I can't afford to wait until end of this year for Nehalem, as I'm studying abroad. The country I'm studying at (India) doesn't sell much IT things. So my deadline is early October.

TQ

 

[demiurge3141]

q6600!

 

[betasub]

At those prices, E8500 is the budget or gamer's choice. Only pay the premium for a quad if you have applications that definitely take advantage of the extra cores - and if that is the case, make sure you consider the Q6600.

With that motherboard, can we assume you will be overclocking?

 

[FalseChristian]

Hi. You're from Malaysia? Lucky guy. Nice and warm all year unlike where I live in Canada (the Great White North! LOL!). For gaming I'd go with the E8500. Just make sure you get an 'E0' stepping instead of the 'C0' stepping. You should be able to overclock it to 4.0GHz+.

 

[tallman45]

When you say Video Encoding, What app do you use and how many hours a week ?

That would be the only reason for a Quad, you are paying more for the proc initially and more for Power (all the Time) for that benefit. If you encode a little here and there, then its not worth the Quad

 

[Shmee]

I would say Q6600, G0. either that, or an E0 Q9550. For dual core, you would do fine with an E8400, as long as its E0. Just make sure you get the right stepping.

Of course, if you are not overclocking, then I guess that may change things, and you may want to get a Q6700 (which are all G0). They are also pretty cheap, at least here in the US.

 

[Drsignguy]

If you plan on having this rig for quite some time and the next build would be the i7 platform in say 2-3 years, Then I would go for a Q6600 or the Q9550 as the Quad would bennifiet you much better in the long run. You will gain more software than hardware along the way and the software is merging towards the multi threaded path.

 

[edplayer]

how much are the E8400?

 

[taltamir]

some prices please, it is hard to recommend otherwise.

 

[dguy6789]

Quad. There is no reason to buy a dual if you can afford a quad. Same could be said in the past when the question was asked before about duals vs singles.

 

[RussianSensation]

I do video decoding which takes a long long time. For this reason I went with a quad. I also don't pay for electricity. Otherwise, if most of your tasks you spend gaming, general word document processing, I'd get the E8400.

 

[dguy6789]

First of all, you wouldn't really notice an improvement in games with the dual over the quad. You would right away notice all the benefits the quad offers over the dual. Multitasking and the like. People like to say that quad cores are going overboard when it comes to multitasking ability, but the second you play a game using dual cores, your dually is used up and unable to multitask without a performance impact. Back to square one like a single core trying to multitask.

 

[drajin]

Since some of you mentioned Q6600, here's the price list again

Q9550 = RM 1130
Q9450 = RM 1100 (Less than $10 difference. No point take this one)
Q9400 = RM 890
Q6600 = RM 640

E8600 = RM 910 (approaching Q9550 price, probably not gonna take this one)
E8500 = RM 650

Originally posted by: Drsignguy
If you plan on having this rig for quite some time and the next build would be the i7 platform in say 2-3 years, Then I would go for a Q6600 or the Q9550 as the Quad would bennifiet you much better in the long run. You will gain more software than hardware along the way and the software is merging towards the multi threaded path.

yes' I'll be using up tp 3-4 years

Originally posted by: betasub
At those prices, E8500 is the budget or gamer's choice. Only pay the premium for a quad if you have applications that definitely take advantage of the extra cores - and if that is the case, make sure you consider the Q6600.

With that motherboard, can we assume you will be overclocking?

As you can see, E8500 and Q6600 have similar price. Their difference is neglible. Which would you prefer between these twos?

Originally posted by: edplayer
how much are the E8400?

Originally posted by: taltamir
some prices please, it is hard to recommend otherwise.

The price I listed is the recommended one. The model which is not included is either too expensive, or the faster one is only a few dollars more expensive. (neglible differences, such as the Q9550 & Q9450) So, I hope you recommend the one in the list ONLY.

And, if dual core has no advantage whatsoever over the quad, I'll probably take quad. Does power consumption really that much different compared to dual core? Even if I do take the quad, which quad should I take? Q6600 have good price. Then again, I'm using for 4 years, Q9550 might be the answer as well.

Aaaaarg!

 

[the unknown]

Originally posted by: drajin

And, if dual core has no advantage whatsoever over the quad, I'll probably take quad. Does power consumption really that much different compared to dual core? Even if I do take the quad, which quad should I take? Q6600 have good price. Then again, I'm using for 4 years, Q9550 might be the answer as well.

Aaaaarg!

Well that's not exactly true. If you're overclocking, the e8500(e0) will most certainly reach 4.0ghz+ with a decent cooler. If you're only gaming, it would perform better. You also forget that the e8500 has a price advantage though . However, since you're keeping it for 3-4 years, I'd recommend a q6600 or q9550. If you were upgrading in 2 I'd say the dual no questions asked.

Between the q9550 and the q6600, I'd choose the q9550. The best price/preformance is definitely the q6600, but since you're keeping it for several years, I'd probably have to dish out the extra money for the upgrade. It will overclock better and last you quite awhile for games; the q6600 overclocked to 3.2 is probably already bottlenecking the newest GPUs at lower resolutions. Definitely at stock it's holding them back.

If the cash matters, though, just stick with an e8500. It's not like you're gonna multitask while gaming... and despite what dguy says if you're just running normal programs, not encoding or things that utilize the multiple cores, you wont see a difference in multitasking. Sure by the 3rd or 4th year your dual core will shown signs of aging, but at 4.0ghz (or more, probably if it's e0) it will be enough to run games.
Though this is entirely speculation: If developers are still coding in 32-bit like they are now, I think it will be awhile before they start coding for quads. Most apps aren't even optimized for dual, much less quad.

 

[drajin]

Good point there. Remember, E8500 and Q6600 have same price. Like you said, it's not like I multi task when gaming. Eventhough I multi task with some heavy software, usually the other task would be "light task". Quad would be kinda overboard. Anyway, what advantages does 45nm chip have? Power consumption? If I'm not mistaken, Q6600 is NOT a 45nm.

Right now my money is on E8500. A good price indeed. But still, I want someone to give me good reason why I should take Quad such as Q9550 and Q6600. I have 2 weeks to buy it. Still lotsa time to think and do research.

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: the unknown
the q6600 overclocked to 3.2 is probably already bottlenecking the newest GPUs at lower resolutions. Definitely at stock it's holding them back.

I think it will be awhile before they start coding for quads. Most apps aren't even optimized for dual, much less quad.

- Hardly anyone runs newest GPUs at lower (<1600x1200) resolutions.
- Hardly anyone would recommend buying a stock Q6600 if overclocking is not involved
- It might take a while before coding for quads occurs (in games), but single core A64 became obsolete very quickly when it did happen.

Since OP will keep this system for 3-4 years, Q6600 @ 3.4ghz+ is unbeatable. In best case scenario an E8400 @ 4.0ghz will be 20-25% faster than a Q6600 @ 3.4ghz. Applying the same performance difference to single A64 vs. X2 we get almost double the performance in COD4 despite 20% slower clock speed per core

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
First of all, you wouldn't really notice an improvement in games with the dual over the quad. You would right away notice all the benefits the quad offers over the dual. Multitasking and the like. People like to say that quad cores are going overboard when it comes to multitasking ability, but the second you play a game using dual cores, your dually is used up and unable to multitask without a performance impact. Back to square one like a single core trying to multitask.

Hands down one of my favourite posts yet. I especially love the part about

but the second you play a game using dual cores, your dually is used up and unable to multitask without a performance impact.

cause you know how the average person loves to play a game like Crysis while chatting on a messenger while downloading files while encoding videos lol. Personally, I don't know any intelligent gamer that does anything more than downloading files while playing a game which BTW my 4850e @ 3.2ghz does just fine as I DL stuff and play Crysis on high detail with no bennefit from ceasing my DL's as far as FPS goes. And btw, there is no such thing as launching an additional program WITHOUT a performance impact of some sort

I'd go with the E8500 myself and crank that baby up. I was debating Phenom 9600BE over the 4850e but at 3.2ghz per core vs the Phenom which would max at 2.8 on my mobo I think I'm better off, especially seeing as the 3.2 is without pushing my CPU yet Thats my drop in clock up and boot OC I'd immagine I'll see 3.4ghz with my dually when I take the time and sit down with it.

For the most part you're gonna get more of a bennefit with that super fast dually over the quads ATM unless you play SupCom and Call of Juarez which seem to love quads.

 

[the unknown]

Originally posted by: drajin
Anyway, what advantages does 45nm chip have? Power consumption? If I'm not mistaken, Q6600 is NOT a 45nm.

Yeah, and it overclocks better, and will probably run cooler. Q6600 is 65nm.

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
Since OP will keep this system for 3-4 years, Q6600 @ 3.4ghz+ is unbeatable. In best case scenario an E8400 @ 4.0ghz will be 20-25% faster than a Q6600 @ 3.4ghz.

3.2ghz is usually the "average" OC for a q6600. Regardless though, I tend to agree. CoD4 is a very well optimized game when it comes to core scaling, but still I have to say a quad is the better choice for longevity. I enjoy my e7200 very much at 3.8, and know I can push it further if the need arises, but I will be upgrading within 2 years. I don't need the quad core, and the raw speed is much better than the extra cores I don't use. Plus I saved some cash.

For your case though, it would seem quad would be the best way to go. 3-4 years is a long way to go for CPUs. You can make the choice to spend double the cash on q9550 if you want, or you can stick with the q6600. But if you keep up with the news on Nahalem and then Westmere, you're gonna be drooling for an upgrade big time. It's gonna be the same predicament with the dual/quad now. Personally, I like to go the cheaper route, and upgrade more often, then try and "future proof." Whatever works for you though.

 

[Tempered81]

dual now, quad when you need it.

 

[drajin]

Originally posted by: jaredpace
dual now, quad when you need it.

Dude, I only gonna buy once in this 3-4 yrs.

Anyway,

Thanks for the tips guys.
Now I'm still deciding between Q9550 and E8500. (lol, back to square one) I'm putting Q6600 aside, as I'm willing to pay more for faster Quad CPU (if I'm going quad), and future proof too.
Based on your opinions and my understanding, I made this statement;

Why take Duo? because;
- cheaper
- higher clock speed
- more application supported

Why take Quad? because;
- have 4 cores (duh)
- faster for multi tasking
- more future proof
- more application will support quad in near future (wonder if that's true)

Got a few question. This is just an "if", not my true situation

1) 3-4 years. Q9550 for future proof?
2) I do not overclock. Go for Q9550?
3) Quad is just crap. Go for E8500?
4) Money is not an issue. Go for Q9550?
5) I only play game. Go for E8500?
6) I encode video a lot. Go for Q8550?

Remember I won't buy any new rig in 3-4 years. This is because I'm studying abroad, where IT there is falling behind, and expensive too. My studies end in 3-4 years, so thats why I can't upgrade. I'm stuck in this country for that period of time.

However, right now my mind is;
60% Q9550
40% E8500

So, any good issue should I choose either one?

 

[hclarkjr]

i say go quad, i just upgraded today from a E6600 that was over clocked to 3 GHZ to a Q6600 that is not over clocked, yet. to me the quad is just as fast as the E6600 and i get 2 extra cores to boot. i ran 3dmark06 and got score of 13,200 compared to 13,700 for the E6600@3GHZ. I would say that is not to shabby

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Future proofing as the average person has it in thier heads is a joke.

Sure, a Quad core CPU now and a GTX280 will last u years to come for encoding, web surfing and general multi tasking. But now in a year and a half your GPU will be limiting you and thats with a high end GPU. If you're not running at least an HD4850 then I wouldn't worry with a Q6600 even as the e8500 @ 4ghz will handle all other tasks for years to come. A Q6600 will help some as time goes by but do you really plan to get that new 100% quad core optimized video encoding program every year like clockwork as they release a new version?

When it comes to PC's you build it for now. You don't build it for 2 yrs from now as by that time the application speed you thought you'd have isnt there. You don't play the waiting game for months saying "Well this CPU will be 25% cheaper in 4 months" cause when that time rolls arround and that CPU is 25% cheaper you're now looking at the next up CPU going "well, in 4 more months that CPU will be 30% cheaper so I'm just gonna wait till then and upgrade", at that rate you'll never get the speed that you'd have had if u just spent the extra when u were thinking about it.

Build your PC based off of what you do now and what you can see yourself actually doing in the next year. In 2 years you'll be doing the same thing you are now because you'll want to stay as on top of the game as your budget will allow and in the end you'll never be happy

EDIT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

For gods sake pretend fn 3DMark and sysmark and aquamark and all that other BS you wanna get higher scores in doesn't even fn exist. If you base a machine off of how well you do in noobiemark then you're never gonna b happy in RL application performance. Whats the point in scoring 10k more in 3dMark when your FPS is already 70 in a game that plays pefectly with 30FPS ?

People that say they gotta upgrade thier PC because it doesn't do well on 3DMark need to be drug behind a wood shed and beat to death with thier own PC.

I build 1 PC a year and I keep my budget between $500 - $800 every year. This way I'm never out too much, my loss is only about $100 - $300 every year when I sell last years machine and I'm never left playing the guessing game for months on end

 

[drajin]

Originally posted by: Dazed and Confused

Build your PC based off of what you do now and what you can see yourself actually doing in the next year. In 2 years you'll be doing the same thing you are now because you'll want to stay as on top of the game as your budget will allow and in the end you'll never be happy

I would do that if I could. The thing is, I can't. Pls read my orevious post. I'm stuck in this country (India) for 3-4 years. I'm not playing waiting game here, as I know that when some hardware drops price, it's just that newer and better hardware was already out, and you're be looking at that newer thing. I was thinking buying the best hardware now, and hope it settled for 3-4 years.

My mind;
50% E8500
50% Q9550

 

[Drsignguy]

Originally posted by: drajin

Originally posted by: Dazed and Confused

Build your PC based off of what you do now and what you can see yourself actually doing in the next year. In 2 years you'll be doing the same thing you are now because you'll want to stay as on top of the game as your budget will allow and in the end you'll never be happy

I would do that if I could. The thing is, I can't. Pls read my orevious post. I'm stuck in this country (India) for 3-4 years. I'm not playing waiting game here, as I know that when some hardware drops price, it's just that newer and better hardware was already out, and you're be looking at that newer thing. I was thinking buying the best hardware now, and hope it settled for 3-4 years.

My mind;
50% E8500
50% Q9550

If you decide to get the E8500, you would always second guess yourself the "what if" factor. Believe me, get the Quad and you wont be disappointed........at all......

 

[drajin]

That is a strong "IF" there.
What you said was right. If I (yes, another "IF") bought the E8500, I might be wondering. "If I bought Q9550 that day, I wonder how it would be like?"
This happens all the time, everyone experience this. Not just with computers. Haha
But since you didn't wrote any detail to convince me, that "IF" only worth 1%. Hahahaha

My Mind;
49% E8500
51% Q9550