• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

DUO versus QUAD thread #1237892137

Atech said:
You have an ignore function...use it...I have ignored him long time ago...
Click to expand...

You also have a report post function... use it... and it will help a lot of other people too especially when the poster gets a vacation. :eek:

Btw I would go with a slightly slower quad (~3Ghz OC) that a faster dual (~4 GHz OC). 3GHz is fast enough for most single threaded applications and having more cores is better for multithreaded applications. For gaming, the CPU is not very important as long as it is not bottlenecking the GPU. Normally you will be limited by the GPU so there is no difference between a 3 GHz quad or a 4GHz dual.
 
alg7_munif said:
You also have a report post function... use it... and it will help a lot of other people too especially when the poster gets a vacation. :eek:

Btw I would go with a slightly slower quad (~3Ghz OC) that a faster dual (~4 GHz OC). 3GHz is fast enough for most single threaded applications and having more cores is better for multithreaded applications. For gaming, the CPU is not very important as long as it is not bottlenecking the GPU. Normally you will be limited by the GPU so there is no difference between a 3 GHz quad or a 4GHz dual.
Click to expand...
well I doubt they will report a post that is a deserved response to their own instigation. people act like jerks on here all the time but cant take it when someone does it to them.

yeah with a Core 2 at 3.0 or higher the cpu starts going out of the picture especially over 1680. with a high end sli or crossfire setup though the cpu will start to be important again though. IMO if you are running bleeding edge multi graphics card a good fast quad would be the only choice.
 
Atech said:
I did back when he get an ignore, but I'm not reading his posts just to report them...
Click to expand...
and obviously the mods didnt find it worthy of even being reported now did they? again I never resort to insults or name calling unless its instigated. ;)
 
No cannondale, if you look back (if you dare) you'll see that you went ahead with the trash talk when you decided in a previous post that enginurd had a different opinion (which in fact he was supporting your statement). You didn't fully read and comprehend his post which prompted him to say "ppl don't read..", which makes you the ass for not doing so and making false assumptions and accusations.
 
lowteckh said:
No cannondale, if you look back (if you dare) you'll see that you went ahead with the trash talk when you decided in a previous post that enginurd had a different opinion (which in fact he was supporting your statement). You didn't fully read and comprehend his post which prompted him to say "ppl don't read..", which makes you the ass for not doing so and making false assumptions and accusations.
Click to expand...
there is NO thrash talking in what I originally replied to him with. perhaps I didnt word it correctly but I was agreeing with 90% of what he said. the only thing I added was in regard to his comment about overclocking. so HE was the one that decided to be an ass and do his little eye roll and make his derogatory comments because he didnt like people repeating the same thing. I guess you and everybody else that has a problem with me are just seeing what you want to see no matter what.


here are the post in order. so who is being the ass first?

enginurd said:
Back when I was deciding between a dual core and single core, when Athlon 64 X2's came out, I'm sure glad I chose the dual core because it lasted me longer than a single core would have (I'm a heavy multi-tasker). My quadcore system now (Q6600 @ 3.4Ghz) is much smoother than my dual core was (E6750 @ 3.8Ghz), as far as multi-tasking goes.

Nobody can predict the future. You can OC either CPU, but you can't add cores to a dual core. If all you do is play games, then, like I said before, a dual core will serve you better than a quad, right now. If you do any multi-tasking or heavy computing, then a quadcore will perform nearly the same in games, and give you more power for those other things -- and it will be better fit for future use.
Click to expand...

cannondale06 said:
as for as gaming and general usage the Q6600 will do nothing better than the E8500. when it comes to overclocking you can overclock the E8500 much easier and farther than the Q6600. no matter how you cut it the E8500 is better, faster, and uses way less power at stock or overclocked speeds for most tasks. now if he actually did things that needed 4 cores then yeah but for gaming and general usage no. what few games take advantage of quad cores can be made up for by higher clocks on the dual core.
Click to expand...

enginurd said:
I already said that, did you not read? :rolleyes: I swear, people can't read on this forum. I am already telling him his best current option is a dual core. I am also telling him why a quadcore would be good. Why do we keep repeating ourselves? No wonder people hate these threads -- because people keep repeating themselves five billion times over.
Click to expand...

cannondale06 said:
well I was agreeing with you on some points and then simply saying that overclocking the Q6600 wont mean much because the E8500 will overclock even better. perhaps instead of being an asshole, YOU should read more closely next time.
Click to expand...
 
Argue away this thread, count me out, me bored of drama. Specialized > Cannondale.
 
lowteckh said:
Argue away this thread, count me out, me bored of drama. Specialized > Cannondale.
Click to expand...
argue about what? you jumped in the thread just to make your comment to me. now I just you showed that it was incorrect because you claimed I starting trash talking to him first when that wasnt true. unfortunately this is hardforum where people cant admit when they make a mistake.
 
So if you report a member, who do you think the mods will look unfavorably upon... The guy who posted the "roll eyes" icon which the forums has availabel to use and is not against the rules, or the guy calling people "assholes"? Good luck with that one.

Just becuase you've got thin skin and got offended way to easily, doesn't make you right.
 
RamonGTP said:
So if you report a member, who do you think the mods will look unfavorably upon... The guy who posted the "roll eyes" icon which the forums has availabel to use and is not against the rules, or the guy calling people "assholes"? Good luck with that one.

Just becuase you've got thin skin and got offended way to easily, doesn't make you right.
Click to expand...
well people can obviously be a passive aggressive jerk on here and insult others and be rude but its not okay to call them out on it. funny how both of my comments they led to infractions started from the other persons insults and sarcastic behavior. basically its like the mentality around here where is whoever reports something is looked at as the victim no matter what they did to instigate it as long as they didnt actually call someone a name.

also look at the 2 or 3 post that offered nothing in this thread but to try and insult me further even though what some claimed was not even true. thats okay because people on here see only what they want to see no matter what the facts are.
 
It's the internet and we're all strangers. It's really not that serious. Someone disagreed with what you said and rolled their eyes, big freakin' deal. It's not the first and it certainly won't be the last. It really would be in your best interest to get over it and worry about something that may actually be an insult.
 
Adobe PDF reader 9 just got a whole lot faster with a Quad core. Flash is just as slow as it ever was on a single core. Java seems to be slowly taking advantage of extra cores.

Eventually newer games will take advantage of the extra cores.

But I'm just happy that multiMeg PDF's actually scroll quickly.

3 Years? Definitely go Quad. Windows 7 will be based on CPUs with up to 32 cores per die (rumor)
 
RamonGTP said:
It's the internet and we're all strangers. It's really not that serious. Someone disagreed with what you said and rolled their eyes, big freakin' deal. It's not the first and it certainly won't be the last. It really would be in your best interest to get over it and worry about something that may actually be an insult.
Click to expand...
dont worry I am over it. I just wish others that arent contributing to this thread would stop trying to stir up trouble especially when they are wrong.

anyway back to the topic...
 
ZenOps said:
Adobe PDF reader 9 just got a whole lot faster with a Quad core. Flash is just as slow as it ever was on a single core. Java seems to be slowly taking advantage of extra cores.

Eventually newer games will take advantage of the extra cores.

But I'm just happy that multiMeg PDF's actually scroll quickly.

3 Years? Definitely go Quad. Windows 7 will be based on CPUs with up to 32 cores per die (rumor)
Click to expand...
hopefully not even 3 years. I just just built my pc with 18-24 months in mind for the next pc. Im sure by then dual cores will probably be only on the low end cpus and quad core will be the norm. as for now getting the most bang for buck the e8400 or e8500 just made the most sense for me and my uses. its really a hard decision though since the Q6600 also offers just as much cpu for the money to some people.
 
I'm having flashbacks to my childhood, "He started it" "No, you started it"

Anyways back to the topic: My recommendation would be to get the quad because you won't be upgrading for a while. So if apps start to take advantage of that you have it, I found going from quad to Core i7 (8 logical cores) to help smooth my megatasking out even more. If you were going to upgrade in a year I would give a totally different recommendation.
 
Uberbob102000 said:
I'm having flashbacks to my childhood, "He started it" "No, you started it"

Anyways back to the topic: My recommendation would be to get the quad because you won't be upgrading for a while. So if apps start to take advantage of that you have it, I found going from quad to Core i7 (8 logical cores) to help smooth my megatasking out even more. If you were going to upgrade in a year I would give a totally different recommendation.
Click to expand...
but do those same apps not get just as much performance from a higher clocked dual core as they do from a slower clocked quad? for gaming thats true but as for others things Im not too sure.
 
The quad now so you don't have to upgrade for a while theory is flawed. By the time 3yrs rolls around and we have this software that will need four cores, a q6600 will long be obsolete and too slow.

I recommend a e8500 just because you get two faster cores and they will hardly ever be 100% utilized on both of them anyways, but when a single thread maxes out a core, it will be running far faster on a e8500 core vs a core on a q6600.


EDIT: Either way, you really can't go wrong though. It's not like one is WAY better then the other no matter which way you look at it.

And I also can't believe I was dumb enough to post in this thread. If the OP knew this is a old dead horse, why didn't he just read the many other threads on the subject?
 
i noticed with call of duty world at war my dual core is at 100%. also, if you pay attention to reviews you will notice a in order for a dual core to match a quad core in the all important MINIMUM fps arena, the dual must be at least 500mhz faster han the quad. from all the reviews ive read ive come to the conlusion a 3.4Ghz quad core will perform equal to a dual core at 4Ghz in game and out perform it in everything else.
 
LawGiver said:
i noticed with call of duty world at war my dual core is at 100%. also, if you pay attention to reviews you will notice a in order for a dual core to match a quad core in the all important MINIMUM fps arena, the dual must be at least 500mhz faster han the quad. from all the reviews ive read ive come to the conlusion a 3.4Ghz quad core will perform equal to a dual core at 4Ghz in game and out perform it in everything else.
Click to expand...
well thats only true in 2 or 3 games and even then at high res and setting that gamers use the quad core usually offers little to no improvement over a dual core with the same clocks.

Far Cry is probably the most multi threaded modern game but once hit hits 1600 res with AA a dual core and quad core with the same clocks are almost dead even. turn that res up to 1920 and they are even. on an even slower video card at those resolutions the quad would have even less impact. http://hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTU4MCwyLCxoZW50aHVzaWE=
 
oh no sir you are mistaken. at same clocks a quad will be better than a dual.
 
LawGiver said:
oh no sir you are mistaken. at same clocks a quad will be better than a dual.
Click to expand...
usually yes clock for clock the quad is better especially at lower res. at higher res and setting theres not much differnce and above 1920 virtually none.

Far Cry is probably the most multi threaded modern game but once hit hits 1600 res with AA a dual core and quad core with the same clocks are almost dead even. turn that res up to 1920 and they are even. on an even slower video card at those resolutions the quad would have even less impact. http://hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTU4MCwyLCxoZW50aHVzaWE=
 
cannondale06 said:
usually yes clock for clock the quad is better especially at lower res. at higher res and setting theres not much differnce and above 1920 virtually none.

Far Cry is probably the most multi threaded modern game but once hit hits 1600 res with AA a dual core and quad core with the same clocks are almost dead even. turn that res up to 1920 and they are even. on an even slower video card at those resolutions the quad would have even less impact. http://hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTU4MCwyLCxoZW50aHVzaWE=
Click to expand...

but this only tells half the story. you have chosen to ignore my statement about MINUMUM fps. The above graph fails to show this aspect. bi-tech is a good site who more than anyone else reports minimum fps with different CPU solutions. give them a look. at same clocks, and quad will almost always have HIGHER minimum FPS.
 
Quad core FTW. My Q6600 (65nm) @ 3.6 kills my buddies e8600 (45nm) @ 3.8 all day long.
 
I mentioned it earlier - look at core i7 - quad only. Look at AMD phenmon - quad only (well the x3 is irrelevant). Tech is going somewhere, and it is obvious where - more cores. Already when I multitask, I can tell the difference by going to quad - I get high cpu usage over multiple threads...
I recommend quad.
 
get a used chip for a few bucks more than the 3ghz duo, it hits 3ghz with ease :). (quad that is)
 
darkmatter08 said:
I mentioned it earlier - look at core i7 - quad only. Look at AMD phenmon - quad only (well the x3 is irrelevant). Tech is going somewhere, and it is obvious where - more cores.
Click to expand...

+infinity

The largest chip manufacturer in the world certainly isn't putting all it's resources into 4+ core CPU's beucase duals are the way to go.

/thread
 
RamonGTP said:
+infinity

The largest chip manufacturer in the world certainly isn't putting all it's resources into 4+ core CPU's beucase duals are the way to go.

/thread
Click to expand...

It's because they realized that they can't keep pumping up the clock speeds any longer, and in order to continue selling product they need some other way to make you think your old CPU is outdated - and the way they decided to do that is to add more cores.

Works for Microsoft and it works for Intel.

As an aside, if Intel really believed that quad-core was the way to go, wouldn't they be making a higher percentage of quad-cores? I'm too lazy to look for numbers now, but they are still making many more duals than quads (and while i7 is all quad, they are like 1% of Intel's production, ramping up to something like 5% by Q3 of 2009) link.
 
"/thread" has to be the gayest thing anyone can post during a discussion.

It's about as cool as posting "first" on sites like break.com.
 
Your opinion on "/thread" doesn't change anything. Deal with it. You'll see it again I'm sure.

Intel isn't making a larger percentage of quads for a simple reason, cost. For the vast majority of users, even a single core would suffice, a dual core is probably good enough for 99% of users. Consumers want things as cheap as they can get them, dual is cheaper than quad and since it's enough, that's what they buy and hence, that's what Intel sells. You look at the HIGH end though, and it's all quads.
 
RamonGTP said:
Your opinion on "/thread" doesn't change anything. Deal with it. You'll see it again I'm sure.

Intel isn't making a larger percentage of quads for a simple reason, cost. For the vast majority of users, even a single core would suffice, a dual core is probably good enough for 99% of users. Consumers want things as cheap as they can get them, dual is cheaper than quad and since it's enough, that's what they buy and hence, that's what Intel sells. You look at the HIGH end though, and it's all quads.
Click to expand...

That pretty much directly counters what you wrote above - where you said that Intel was putting all its resources into quads. In this post you are making a strong argument that duals are the way to go.
 
Even if the Duos and the Quads had the exact same performance, Duos will begin to fall by the wayside at a more rapid pace as time goes on. A vast majority still purchase Duos though because they "suffice" and they are cheap (relatively speaking). It is no secret that the Duo handles most things out there just fine. The differentiation stems from the fact that a Quad is "at the very least" just as good as a Duo but can also handle other things better than a Duo. Is there really anything a Duo is better at clock for clock (other than being cheaper)?

I could have easily just built another Duo rig with top-knotch equipment and saved myself some money over the Core i7 build I am doing. But I didn't. Why? Because I wanted to "upgrade", not just run at a higher clock speed.

IMO, the thread title should really be "Cost effectiveness of the Duo vs the Quad: Short-term and Long-term". :D

My .02c :)
 
Forceman said:
That pretty much directly counters what you wrote above - where you said that Intel was putting all its resources into quads. In this post you are making a strong argument that duals are the way to go.
Click to expand...

L2Read.
RamonGTP said:
The largest chip manufacturer in the world certainly isn't putting all it's resources into 4+ core CPU's beucase duals are the way to go.
Click to expand...
 
Forceman said:
That pretty much directly counters what you wrote above - where you said that Intel was putting all its resources into quads. In this post you are making a strong argument that duals are the way to go.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

Ok, I'll be as specific as I can so you don't get confused. Obvioulsy they're not spending ALL resources on quads are there would be no dual's on the market. However, their R&D for high end products has largly shifted away from duals and into quads and beyond.

If you fall into the catagory of the average user and are concerned with price above all else, then sure, I made a strong case for duals and they're the way to go. If you're looking for high end, i made the case for quads.
 
RamonGTP said:
:rolleyes:

Ok, I'll be as specific as I can so you don't get confused. Obvioulsy they're not spending ALL resources on quads are there would be no dual's on the market. However, their R&D for high end products has largly shifted away from duals and into quads and beyond.

If you fall into the catagory of the average user and are concerned with price above all else, then sure, I made a strong case for duals and they're the way to go. If you're looking for high end, i made the case for quads.
Click to expand...

Well, you are the one that used the word ALL, I was just quoting you (and I can use the :rolleyes: also).

I am not arguing the relative merits of dual vs quad, since that's been argued to the death around here, I was just pointing out that there is still a large and viable market for duals (and really, singles) but that Intel and AMD have moved to multi-core as a way to continue pushing new products out the door now that clockspeed is no longer easily increasable.
 
I'm sure you knew quite well what I was saying. If you want to prove a point, do so on the merits of your argument, not on a technicality where you knew what I was talking about. And if you really didn't know what I was talking about, well, a little common sense goes a long way.

It really doesn't matter WHY the move to quad cores is happening, the fact of the matter is that it IS happening. Sure, duals still serve a purpose, I said so in my last post and I'm not denying that at all. Heck, ALL my computers are dual core except for my main one. But for me, when I want to go high end, dual core, regardless of what clock speed advantage it may have, isn't an option.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top