Should I go for 2 or 4 cores for an all around CPU?

[VirtualLarry]

Dual-core is SLOW. Quad-core is FAST, and BUTTERY SMOOTH.

Then again, I've never compared a dual-core with an SSD, with a quad-core on a mechanical HD.

 

[Munky]

Definitely 4 cores. If this was a question from 3 years ago, I might say otherwise, but in this day and age, there's plenty of games and applications benefiting from 4 cores. I wouldn't even consider a dually unless the budget was really limited.

 

[FalseChristian]

I think the OP knows the answer. 4 cores all the way. I went from a 2-core Intel E8400 overclocked to 3.825GHz to a 4-core i5 2500K overclocked to 4.5GHz and the same 2 GTX 460 1GBs in SLI and my benchmark scores nearly doubled.

The answer is a no-brainer. 4

Even Abraham Lincoln thought so over 150 years ago when he said: "4 core and twenty years ago..."

 

[tweakboy]

You do video editing. 4GB is a must ,,,,, 8GB better.

 

[Magic Carpet]

Dual-core is SLOW. Quad-core is FAST

Interesting logic here :biggrin:

 

[sxegloxx]

doesn't make sense to me, get 8GB of RAM and you'll never be limited by the HDD IMO.

How about NO!

 

[Vic Vega]

A dual core I5 is either 3 generations back or a mobile CPU.
For gaming an I3 2120 is very close to an AMD Phenom II 965 overclocked. The Ivy Bridge version should be faster.

For true multithreading four cores are better. Any of the I5 CPUs will "best" an overclocked 965 whether a "K" chip or not.

Do not know what you use in work. The client I am stuck with is atom based, usually does office well enough. Can not hande web pages with high demands. The work servers are a trial, slow, freeze ups, lock ups when overloaded.

Sigh, work for a nonprofit, hardware is in the "good enough" category budget woise.

Mobile Sandy Bridge and I hate it. System has an SSD too.

 

[videogames101]

4

 

[RaistlinZ]

I'd never settle for anything less than 4C + HT at this point, but that's just me.

 

[Bman123]

Get a i3 with hyper threading and a ssd

 

[alkemyst]

doesn't make sense to me, get 8GB of RAM and you'll never be limited by the HDD IMO.

dude, it's not just about swapping memory to disk.

 

[alkemyst]

OP, almost everything is quickly being optimized to multi-cores. 4 cores is a good spot for a general use machine. If you were a gamer with specific games then perhaps a specialized dual-core (and usually with the hope it overclocks) would prove a bit faster, but even then it usually comes down to GPU.

 

[FalseChristian]

How come no one is getting a chuckle outta my Abraham Lincoln post? It was ingenious, don't you think?

 

[alkemyst]

How come no one is getting a chuckle outta my Abraham Lincoln post? It was ingenious, don't you think?

witty, but this isn't OT so YMMV here in the jokes.

 

[Midwayman]

It highly depends on what you're doing. I'd buy a high end dual before a low end quad most of the time. Most loads still depend on single threaded performance a great deal of the time. Also a Dual core plus a SSD would be a much better buy than a quad with a mechanical hard drive. Obviously a quad is better than a dual. I know it smoothed out pops in the UI and also help with minimum frame rates in games. (Less back ground tasks popping up and causing hitches)

You'd be better off asking people what is the best setup you can get for whatever your budget is. You'll get more concrete and useful answers.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Please note you're asking this question in forum full of CPU enthusiasts, where the average member probably have something like a i7 2600k. They will of course suggest you to get a quad core, as they need to justify their own purchase.

But really, if you're on a budget, I am 100% certain that a dual core + SSD will give you a significantly faster feeling system. The system will boot much faster, applications and games will start faster. The only thing that would take more time would be things like ecoding/rendering/compiling code.

If money is no issue, sure, get a quad core, but really, getting a SSD should be priority #1.

Hmmm....

Please note you're asking this question in a forum full of computer enthusiasts, where the average member probably has something like dual SSDs in RAID. They will of course suggest you get an SSD, as they need to justify their own purchase.

Neener neener.

Honestly, while "both" is ideal, I'd rather have a quad core than an SSD if I had to pick one.

If you're just building a gaming rig and never do anything but, well, dual-core away. But for a mainstream user, the more-slower-cores approach has a lot of merit. While no single task really uses all those cores, even casual users will tend to multitask enough to see a benefit. (Netflix + Flash game + AV scanner + all the other background crap, bloatware, etc. so many people seem to have...)

With an SSD, for most programs it's load-it-and-forget-it - once the software's in RAM, it stays there. The big one for most people - the web browser - is I/O limited by your internet connection, not by an HDD. Applications load faster? Yes. But computer n00bs use the same three programs and leave them open all day.

SSDs do make using Office... almost tolerable though.

 

[OBLAMA2009]

How come no one is getting a chuckle outta my Abraham Lincoln post? It was ingenious, don't you think?

i laughed, just not out loud

 

[cytg111]

On the other hand, I got a cheeeapo i3 sandy rig for my daughter.. and atm even the ig is rocking her League Of Legends needs ..

 

[Arkaign]

Eh, I'd say that obviously a good quad is better than a same-class CPU with two less cores, but it's not so simple.

Compare an i3-2100 to an Athlon II X4 630 for example. The i3 I believe is faster in everything, even encoding thanks to HT and much much better IPC.

For a general light-use (typical non-gamer/encoder/pro usage) web/email/facebook/angry birds/word/excel kind of user, there's nothing wrong with a decent budget dual core to be honest. As a matter of fact, looking at Windows 7 and typical budget hardware these days, it's never been so good.

Think back 10 years when Windows XP was new. A "cheap" PC was $800ish, and had only 128 or 256MB of ram, a slow ass 5400RPM (in some cases 4200RPM!) hard drive, terrible integrated video most often, a weak CPU, and so on, making even basic computer use kind of painful. Even more so with a crappy antivirus program bogging things down even more.

Today a $300 PC from WalMart with an Intel Dual Core / 2GB or 4GB of ram / 500GB or larger HDD, etc, will run basic tasks extremely well.