Getting a quad-core even if not needed..
- Thread starter Arcadio
- Start date
DarkRogue
Golden Member
- Dec 25, 2007
- 1,243
- 3
- 76
If it is within your budget, why not?
The general idea is to get what you need now, but quad core will eventually be fully utilized and if you can make the investment now, why not? Assuming you keep this CPU until then. If you're going to upgrade fairly often, don't go for it until you need it, as the 45nm quads will be much better than the Q6600 if you decide to get a quad after they're released.
The general idea is to get what you need now, but quad core will eventually be fully utilized and if you can make the investment now, why not? Assuming you keep this CPU until then. If you're going to upgrade fairly often, don't go for it until you need it, as the 45nm quads will be much better than the Q6600 if you decide to get a quad after they're released.
What he said. Particularly if you're planning to keep it for 5 years. That is a LONG time in PC terms and giving Moore's Law, things should be about 3x the power when you're ready to upgrade again.
thats why i went with quad core... i plan on keeping this system a long while... my last system was an overclocked A64 and it lasted just over 3 years so i figured this one might last me about 4...
Cogman
Lifer
- Sep 19, 2000
- 10,286
- 147
- 106
If you can, and you think you might use it, I don't see any reason why not to get one. True it is slightly slower then current dual cores (that is a 6600, the 9450 should display a pretty good performance increase).
But yeah, there is no predicting what you might use your computer for, or might want to use your computer for, in the future. The options are such now that there are few bad choices of processors (except for the Phenom...)
But yeah, there is no predicting what you might use your computer for, or might want to use your computer for, in the future. The options are such now that there are few bad choices of processors (except for the Phenom...)
DSF
Diamond Member
- Oct 6, 2007
- 4,902
- 0
- 71
It might be a good idea to be a little bit more specific about what you do plan to do with the computer. If you're just doing simple office tasks, then I would save your money as a single core chip can handle that just fine, and will for years. By the time you want/need a quad core, it will most likely be much more effective to buy a new quad core than to use one that's running on three year old tech.
On the other hand, if you're not using the quad core right now, but think that you might get into video editing or a similar multithreaded application within one to two years, then buying a quad core might make sense. I wouldn't expect games to really go beyond two cores any time in the near future though.
I kept my Pentium 4 2.6GHz computer for four and half years, and the CPU was only holding it back in the newest of games like Crysis. (Although I was still able to run the Crysis demo at 800x600 with all settings on low.) The real roadblock most of the time was the graphics card, since I was stuck on AGP.
On the other hand, if you're not using the quad core right now, but think that you might get into video editing or a similar multithreaded application within one to two years, then buying a quad core might make sense. I wouldn't expect games to really go beyond two cores any time in the near future though.
I kept my Pentium 4 2.6GHz computer for four and half years, and the CPU was only holding it back in the newest of games like Crysis. (Although I was still able to run the Crysis demo at 800x600 with all settings on low.) The real roadblock most of the time was the graphics card, since I was stuck on AGP.
Dadofamunky
Platinum Member
- Jan 4, 2005
- 2,184
- 0
- 0
Wait until the 45nm quads come out. But, like just about everyone else, I see no reason not to. It certainly won't hurt.
for 5-6 years of the same CPU, it'd be work it to wait for the 45nm quads to come out, they run cooler and work faster. if u must buy now your only option is really the Q6600
Based on what you said: "Even if you expect your system to last 5 or 6 years?", it means you don't foresee needing quad core in 5 or 6 years right?
For the money you save, you can put it towards something more useful/ future purchases/ invest it. You also increase power usage -> higher costs.
For the money you save, you can put it towards something more useful/ future purchases/ invest it. You also increase power usage -> higher costs.
If you can afford it, then sure, why not? If you're expecting to keep it for that long, then you'll probably see a benefit in everyday tasks eventually. If you don't need a system right away, I do agree with waiting a few weeks or so for the less power hungry 45nm quads.
Well affording it isn't the only factor. If his budget is about $260 for a processor, he can choose a slower quad core (Q6600, 4 cores at 2.4ghz) or he can choose a faster dual-core (E6850/E8400, 2 cores at 3.0 ghz). To get 3.0 ghz in a quad core without overclocking, you'd need to spend $1000 for the Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 Yorkfield 3.0GHz.
So the "if you can afford it" is kind of out the window... yeah, if you're really rich, buy the most expensive stuff, but that's not really very original or useful advice
If you can afford $260 for a processor, and don't see yourself using 4 cores very often, I'd recommend you grab a faster E6850/E8400 instead..
So the "if you can afford it" is kind of out the window... yeah, if you're really rich, buy the most expensive stuff, but that's not really very original or useful advice
If you can afford $260 for a processor, and don't see yourself using 4 cores very often, I'd recommend you grab a faster E6850/E8400 instead..
My recommendations are the same whether or not you plan to overclock...
Best choice in stock today:
E6750: dual core, 2.66ghz, ~$190
E6850: dual core, 3.0ghz, ~$260
Best choice in near future:
E8400: dual core, 3.0ghz, ~$200-$250 depending on availability
E8500: dual core, 3.16ghz, ~$300 depending on availability ($305 preorder at tankguys)
If you plan to overclock, grab a good third party heatsink like the tuniq tower.
There aren't any good choices between $300 and $500 right now, so put the rest of your $500 budget towards a CPU upgrade in the next few years.
(edit: added E6750, probably best bang for the buck until E8400 is in stock for closer to $200)
Best choice in stock today:
E6750: dual core, 2.66ghz, ~$190
E6850: dual core, 3.0ghz, ~$260
Best choice in near future:
E8400: dual core, 3.0ghz, ~$200-$250 depending on availability
E8500: dual core, 3.16ghz, ~$300 depending on availability ($305 preorder at tankguys)
If you plan to overclock, grab a good third party heatsink like the tuniq tower.
There aren't any good choices between $300 and $500 right now, so put the rest of your $500 budget towards a CPU upgrade in the next few years.
(edit: added E6750, probably best bang for the buck until E8400 is in stock for closer to $200)
BlueAcolyte
Platinum Member
- Nov 19, 2007
- 2,793
- 2
- 0
What do you mean it OC's better than the E6850? Where'd you read that?
FSB OC'ability can vary from proc to proc, even among the same model, so it's possible to get a really overcloackable E6750 or a really non-overclockable E6850, but the opposite is also possible - a crappy E6750 or a godly E6850.
DSF
Diamond Member
- Oct 6, 2007
- 4,902
- 0
- 71
I think what he meant is that there's no reason to pay the price premium for the E6850 when an E6750 which costs considerably less will easily overclock to the speed of the E6850.
This is especially true considering that the E8400 is on the table. There's no reason to buy an E6850 right now.
Edit: Arcadio, you still haven't specified what this computer is going to be doing. That would help people give more meaningful recommendations.
Ah, yes that makes sense.
But I still would expect to get a higher overclock (at the same FSB) with the 6850 than the 6750 because of the multiplier difference (9 vs 8), unless there are awesome core steppings for the E6750 right now and only crappy ones for the E6850.
Waste of money.
And how do you determine you will spend ""X"" dollars today when spending half of ""X"" dollars will give you more processing power than you need today ???
This is like the antithesis of Moore's Law
""Building a computer for the Future"" ranks higher in stupidity than ""Governmental Intelligence"" - it's an oxymoron. It's incongruous and self-contradictory.
That doesn't mean that your rig cannot be 'expanded and improved' in the future.
No Offense. I hope you get my point. In 18 months you will be able to purchase a proc that is twice the efficiency for half the price ...
If you care more about gaming performance: get a dual-core and OC it.
If you care more about video encoding performance: get a quad-core and OC it.
Otherwise either will serve you well.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter