Dual Core > Quad Core, at least for now

Obviously. Though the q6600 will very easily overclock to 3ghz, at which point it will perform exactly the same as the dual core in dual- or singlecore apps. Valve will make use of the extra cores in their upcoming games. As many people here play those almost exclusively, I will keep recommending quadcores.

By the way, wait till december for the penrynn 45nm cpus, so far they look very promising.
 
Single Core > Dual-Core. A few years ago...

Nothing new really.
 
As far as I can see the guy is retard. He's running games that only use one core and then concluding that quads are not better over duals. This is nothing any of us did not know before this.
 
Nothing really we didn't already know. But if there was anything 'new' today compared to a year or 2 ago it would be that the reasons to get more cores for a gaming PC are growing.
 
And since I need to render a lot of things, Quad core > Dual Core already.
 
I run a small VHS to DVD business and misc computer services out of home second to my normal job. The work rig is running on a quaddie.
 
Yeah, this isn't exactly the fairest of comparisons.

But you'll notice that the VALVe stuff performed well, and they're the ones in the lead of taking advantage of multi-cores.
 
You people are confused with your pacman signs! :P It's quad core>duo core not the other way around.
 
Well I guess that this was probably a waste of a post given the people that frequent this board, but the point is that having 4 cores is a waste unless you're doing a specific application, like rendering, etc.
 
Absolutely, quad core is a waste if you only use 1 or 2 cores.

But how many gamers play Valve games? They plan to utilize 4 cores with the particle effects etc and their player base is HUGE. That covers a lot of gamers that would benefit for quad core vs dual core.

Now if Valve or other big names did NOT pick up quad core benefits then your point would apply to a lot more people. People who won't buy Alan Wake, etc.

EDIT
Check out these Lost Planet CPU benchmarks (Cave).
Some huge gains going with quad core when using a 8800GTX. And FPS is very similar between the dual core 4000mhz setup and quad core 2400Mhz.
 
hool10 said:
You people are confused with your pacman signs! :P It's quad core>duo core not the other way around.
Click to expand...

Nooo so far I don't think anyone has messed up their signs. The point of the thread was to say that Dual Core > Quad Core at the moment.

But clearly it depends on what you'll be doing with it. Personally I'm going to go with dual core because it's way cheaper than quad and will be more than enough for me.
 
The point of this thread is that if you spend the same ammount of money on a dualcore and a quadcore, the dual core will end up being faster in most apps. It's not saying that a dualcore will be faster than a quadcore if they're both running at the same speed.
 
The Brick said:
The point of this thread is that if you spend the same ammount of money on a dualcore and a quadcore, the dual core will end up being faster in most apps.
Click to expand...
That might make more sense. I was coming at it from the pov 'is quad a valid choice or beneficial over dual core for gamers' without looking at price.

BUT taking up part of your point, for $285 you get a 2.4GHz Quad core. A 3GHz dual core CPU will run you $300 ($15 more). It would require the 2.4Ghz quad core to run the app 1.25x faster to be equal with the 3GHz dual core. From the link he posted Valve's benchmark and others did 1.5-2x better. Similar with the link I posted. Which would make the quad core a better choice in those benchmarks and save $15.


The Brick said:
It's not saying that a dualcore will be faster than a quadcore if they're both running at the same speed.
Click to expand...
I would hope no one thinks that. A program should run the same speed between the two if cores go unused.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Asus
Games and Dual/Quad Core Support
Replies
25
Views
25K
Operational
Operational
Back
Top