Dual vs Quad - Lab Benchmarks Vs Reality?

[Zerohm]

So in shopping for my next budget gaming system, I've noticed that the Core 2 Duo E8400 and E8500 score ridiculously high in many gaming benchmarks, often beating far more expensive CPUs. So I'm confident they are good buys, but how would they compare to the quad cores (e.g. Phenom II X4 920, Intel q6600) in real world scenarios?

My suspicion is that in reality, once you add a web browser, music player, VOIP, and antivirus running in the background, the quad cores will prove to be far more robust. Especially as software becomes more optimized for multithreading down the road.

How well do lab results translate to real world complications? Anyone know of benchmarks that include a handful of common services running in the background?

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: Zerohm
So in shopping for my next budget gaming system, I've noticed that the Core 2 Duo E8400 and E8500 score ridiculously high in many gaming benchmarks, often beating far more expensive CPUs. So I'm confident they are good buys, but how would they compare to the quad cores (e.g. Phenom II X4 920, Intel q6600) in real world scenarios?

My suspicion is that in reality, once you add a web browser, music player, VOIP, and antivirus running in the background, the quad cores will prove to be far more robust. Especially as software becomes more optimized for multithreading down the road.

How well do lab results translate to real world complications? Anyone know of benchmarks that include a handful of common services running in the background?

In the scenario you are describing, I think quads do have an advantage over duals, but the main bottleneck in everyday multitasking performance is the hard drive; it just really kills performance. Quads are more forward-looking, though.

 

[Udgnim]

Originally posted by: Zerohm
So in shopping for my next budget gaming system, I've noticed that the Core 2 Duo E8400 and E8500 score ridiculously high in many gaming benchmarks, often beating far more expensive CPUs. So I'm confident they are good buys, but how would they compare to the quad cores (e.g. Phenom II X4 920, Intel q6600) in real world scenarios?

My suspicion is that in reality, once you add a web browser, music player, VOIP, and antivirus running in the background, the quad cores will prove to be far more robust. Especially as software becomes more optimized for multithreading down the road.

How well do lab results translate to real world complications? Anyone know of benchmarks that include a handful of common services running in the background?

I think it's pretty safe to assume a quad pulls ahead of a dual core if some CPU happy programs are being run actively.

an example for me would be running WoW in a window while watching a DVD (I use 2 monitors) and/or WMP with a visual effects mod like Whitecap. I have an E8500 @ 4.2 GHz and take a noticeable FPS hit in WoW when I have WMP actively open with the Whitecap mod. I believe a quad core would not take a FPS hit because the work would be split over 4 CPUs as compared to two.

another item to consider is that >2 CPU support is going to become more widespread and with the console gaming industry growing and PC gaming industry dwindling, expect more console ports or simultaneous PC/console releases. the one positive that comes from console ports is that >2 CPU support pretty much comes standard.

 

[Marty502]

This reminds me of the guys who bought a super expensive Athlon 64 4000+ back in the day, because it had higher Mhz than a Athlon X2 3800, only to kick their own butts when games like Oblivion started to show the advantage of multicore support in games.

If you don't mind upgrading often, get a fast dual core. But if you wanna keep your build for a long time, I think buying a quad core is mandatory.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Zerohm
So in shopping for my next budget gaming system, I've noticed that the Core 2 Duo E8400 and E8500 score ridiculously high in many gaming benchmarks, often beating far more expensive CPUs. So I'm confident they are good buys, but how would they compare to the quad cores (e.g. Phenom II X4 920, Intel q6600) in real world scenarios?

My suspicion is that in reality, once you add a web browser, music player, VOIP, and antivirus running in the background, the quad cores will prove to be far more robust. Especially as software becomes more optimized for multithreading down the road.

How well do lab results translate to real world complications? Anyone know of benchmarks that include a handful of common services running in the background?

There is a point of diminishing returns on cores for today's software...that said, most software companies see the writing on the wall as far as multithreading goes.
However, writing parrallel threads for games takes a HUGE number of man-hours and not a little bit of highly creative thinking to do, so don't expect a big change all at once either.

 

[Drsignguy]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: Zerohm
So in shopping for my next budget gaming system, I've noticed that the Core 2 Duo E8400 and E8500 score ridiculously high in many gaming benchmarks, often beating far more expensive CPUs. So I'm confident they are good buys, but how would they compare to the quad cores (e.g. Phenom II X4 920, Intel q6600) in real world scenarios?

My suspicion is that in reality, once you add a web browser, music player, VOIP, and antivirus running in the background, the quad cores will prove to be far more robust. Especially as software becomes more optimized for multithreading down the road.

How well do lab results translate to real world complications? Anyone know of benchmarks that include a handful of common services running in the background?

In the scenario you are describing, I think quads do have an advantage over duals, but the main bottleneck in everyday multitasking performance is the hard drive; it just really kills performance. Quads are more forward-looking, though.

I do believe that you are on the right track but as ssD's are coming into the picture more and more, I think that the question of HD performance will be a moot question as time goes on.
Quad Cores are truly the way to go if you are an absolute multitasker. I have both and seriously, the dual cores do very well at everything I throw at them.
This is a question for you ( OP ) of what you honestly do with your rig!
And don't tell us "futere proof" as nothing really is, especially with computer hardware!

 

[apoppin]

i am finding that multi-GPU takes much more advantage of Quad-Core over Dual.

A GTX280 is not badly held back by a Dually at 4Ghz - compared directly to a Quad at 4ghz - in many games at common resolutions of 16x10 and 19x12.

HOWEVER, i am finding that CrossFireX-3 really DOES use the "extra" two cores in games that support it and that as high as you can clock your CPU you will often get better performance over an even faster Dual core than your quad

i am mostly done with my benchmarking but do not have all my data organized yet; so this is preliminary benching with 15 games and Q9550S vs E8600 at stock speeds to over 4Ghz

So .. depends on your graphics .. also

 

[ShawnD1]

http://www.pcgameshardware.com...essors/Reviews/?page=2

E6600 - 19fps
Q6600 - 29fps

Moving from 2 cores to 4 cores with virtually the same processor increases frame rate by ~50%.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1
http://www.pcgameshardware.com...essors/Reviews/?page=2

E6600 - 19fps
Q6600 - 29fps

Moving from 2 cores to 4 cores with virtually the same processor increases frame rate by ~50%.

at 12x10 resolution no AA/no AF

who cares?

show me 19x12

 

[Markfw]

Check the sticky at the top of this forum.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: Marty502
This reminds me of the guys who bought a super expensive Athlon 64 4000+ back in the day, because it had higher Mhz than a Athlon X2 3800, only to kick their own butts when games like Oblivion started to show the advantage of multicore support in games.

 

[nOOky]

I went dual because how many people really run that many apps at once? A survey might be in order... I only do one thing at a time, I mean I don't burn dvd's while playing CoD4 online with hulu and folding on another monitor. I do have two computers for that type of thing though.
My take on it is this, take it for what it's worth. If you game, and a dual core is faster in your games, then it's helping you now. If you get a quad which is slower in your games, but more "future-proof" so-to-speak then you are limiting yourself now for a perceived performance gain later. But I'm guessing by the time you upgrade again, your current quad will be obsolete, and a newer version will be better for less money anyway.
The AMD tri-cores looks like a great compromise right now though

 

[IntelUser2000]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: ShawnD1
http://www.pcgameshardware.com...essors/Reviews/?page=2

E6600 - 19fps
Q6600 - 29fps

Moving from 2 cores to 4 cores with virtually the same processor increases frame rate by ~50%.

at 12x10 resolution no AA/no AF

who cares?

show me 19x12

I've seen quite a few people claim CPUs don't matter at high resolutions, but they eventually upgrade the CPUs anyway.

Not to mention CPUs to quite a lot of things that GPUs doesn't do. EVERY single communication outside of the graphics is done by other than GPU. Physics processing, driver overhead, memory management, device intialization, etc. Which is why they call it the C P U.

Graphics do matter significantly, but then why are the biggest complaints about Core i7 the not-so-great increase in gaming performance?

Pretty sure if Intel put 8 cores that is less performing in Core i7 than now, even less people will be caring about it. DESPITE the fact that they say video encoding/decoding/rendering doesn't matter and CPU in high resolution graphics doesn't matter.

 

[tigersty1e]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1
http://www.pcgameshardware.com...essors/Reviews/?page=2

E6600 - 19fps
Q6600 - 29fps

Moving from 2 cores to 4 cores with virtually the same processor increases frame rate by ~50% in GTA4.

Fixed.

Moving from the same speed duo to the same speed quad will increase fps.

But in the real world, duos clock higher than quads.



Just get the core 2 duo. Once games start to get optimized for quads, there will be a cheaper faster quad.

Just look at all those people that bought the Q6600 back when it was 266. From then to now, they really didn't use it for games. But now we have the Q9550 that clocks higher.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: tigersty1e

Originally posted by: ShawnD1
http://www.pcgameshardware.com...essors/Reviews/?page=2

E6600 - 19fps
Q6600 - 29fps

Moving from 2 cores to 4 cores with virtually the same processor increases frame rate by ~50% in GTA4.

Fixed.

Moving from the same speed duo to the same speed quad will increase fps.

But in the real world, duos clock higher than quads.



Just get the core 2 duo. Once games start to get optimized for quads, there will be a cheaper faster quad.

Just look at all those people that bought the Q6600 back when it was 266. From then to now, they really didn't use it for games. But now we have the Q9550 that clocks higher.

IN AT's last PhII review, 3 of the 4 games tested performed better with the 3 Ghz Q9650 than the 3 Ghz E8400. Sometimes dramatically so.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: tigersty1e

Originally posted by: ShawnD1
http://www.pcgameshardware.com...essors/Reviews/?page=2

E6600 - 19fps
Q6600 - 29fps

Moving from 2 cores to 4 cores with virtually the same processor increases frame rate by ~50% in GTA4.

Fixed.

Moving from the same speed duo to the same speed quad will increase fps.

But in the real world, duos clock higher than quads.



Just get the core 2 duo. Once games start to get optimized for quads, there will be a cheaper faster quad.

Just look at all those people that bought the Q6600 back when it was 266. From then to now, they really didn't use it for games. But now we have the Q9550 that clocks higher.

IN AT's last PhII review, 3 of the 4 games tested performed better with the 3 Ghz Q9650 than the 3 Ghz E8400. Sometimes dramatically so.

3.0 Ghz
. . . show me 4.0 Ghz

who CARES about comparing i7 vs C2D vs C2Q at:

1) low resolution and details or filtering

or

2) Slow ASS CPUs

:roll:

 

[taltamir]

My suspicion is that in reality, once you add a web browser, music player, VOIP, and antivirus running in the background, the quad cores will prove to be far more robust. Especially as software becomes more optimized for multithreading down the road.

I agree, in real life situation the Q6600 @ 2.4ghz is massively faster than an E8400 @ 3ghz

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: apoppin

3.0 Ghz
. . . show me 4.0 Ghz

who CARES about comparing i7 vs C2D vs C2Q at:

1) low resolution and details or filtering

or

2) Slow ASS CPUs

:roll:

Because we are having a general discussion about duallies and quads, not about overclocking and gaming-induced video card saturation?

AT's review specifies a 1680x1050 res, which is massively more prevalent than 1920+.

 

[Rick James]

Pair a I7 with a set of SSD's and watch out. very very fast system.

 

[konakona]

I am having a hard time putting terms like I7 and SSD next to a "budget" gaming system.
Just do yourself a favor and get a PII x3

sure, with all else being equal more cores would be better, but I don't think a few web browser windows / music player / VOIP would be anywhere near to tax a fast dual core to result in a noticeable performance hit. Wouldn't it be far better to just give more ram for such CPU-unitensive tasks?

With the talks of i5 or i3 looming on the horizon, I personally think this is not the best time to spend hideous amount of money for something that has inconclusive benefit at the moment.

 

[Kraeoss]

lol i need a Quad !! but i'll hold out til they get cheap when i go quad i want 4.0 or higher lol...

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: apoppin

3.0 Ghz
. . . show me 4.0 Ghz

who CARES about comparing i7 vs C2D vs C2Q at:

1) low resolution and details or filtering

or

2) Slow ASS CPUs

:roll:

Because we are having a general discussion about duallies and quads, not about overclocking and gaming-induced video card saturation?

AT's review specifies a 1680x1050 res, which is massively more prevalent than 1920+.

Is this not an OVERclocking forum?

WHO *here* runs a 3.0Ghz CPU with a top videocard at 16x10?

i am looking at "reality" when 19x12 displays are cheap
- and multi gpu is common

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: ShawnD1
http://www.pcgameshardware.com...essors/Reviews/?page=2

E6600 - 19fps
Q6600 - 29fps

Moving from 2 cores to 4 cores with virtually the same processor increases frame rate by ~50%.

at 12x10 resolution no AA/no AF

who cares?

show me 19x12

Do you want the game to be CPU capped at 19fps or at 29fps? Throw a 4x SLI GTX 295 in there and it will still run like dog shit with a dual core CPU.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: konakona
I am having a hard time putting terms like I7 and SSD next to a "budget" gaming system.
Just do yourself a favor and get a PII x3

sure, with all else being equal more cores would be better, but I don't think a few web browser windows / music player / VOIP would be anywhere near to tax a fast dual core to result in a noticeable performance hit. Wouldn't it be far better to just give more ram for such CPU-unitensive tasks?

With the talks of i5 or i3 looming on the horizon, I personally think this is not the best time to spend hideous amount of money for something that has inconclusive benefit at the moment.

you would be wrong. Actually a web browser is the most core intensive programs I use.
Chrome has 100% scaling due to spawning at LEAST 1 process per tab, and firefox also has some good threading...

Both browsers now feature a "save open tabs" option... so if you have 200, or even just 20 tabs open from last session, when you open you have to wait quite a while for them all to load. A quad core drastically shortens this wait time.

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: konakona
I am having a hard time putting terms like I7 and SSD next to a "budget" gaming system.
Just do yourself a favor and get a PII x3

sure, with all else being equal more cores would be better, but I don't think a few web browser windows / music player / VOIP would be anywhere near to tax a fast dual core to result in a noticeable performance hit. Wouldn't it be far better to just give more ram for such CPU-unitensive tasks?

With the talks of i5 or i3 looming on the horizon, I personally think this is not the best time to spend hideous amount of money for something that has inconclusive benefit at the moment.

you would be wrong. Actually a web browser is the most core intensive programs I use.
Chrome has 100% scaling due to spawning at LEAST 1 process per tab, and firefox also has some good threading...

IMO konakona is right. Web browsing is not intense. To watch rickroll on youtube takes about 12% CPU power on my ~3ghz E6600. If you're maxing out even a crappy Pentium 4 in Firefox then I'm curious as to what you are watching. 3 porn videos at the same time? Maybe 2 if they're both HD? I would really be hard pressed to find any web page capable of maxing out a Pentium 4 or Athlon XP.

(those shitty "netbook" computers use processors that are equivalent to about a Pentium 4 and they seem to work just fine)