Should I get a quad core?

B

bazookaworm

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
192
Are they worth it? I don't run any really intensive programs, but I play lots of games. Someone told me that it's not worth it because lots of programs/games don't support quad. Could someone tell me when/why it's worth to buy a quad core?

Thank you.
 
Windows NT->XP->Vista has been designed as a multi-CPU operating system since 1992. That whole 'nothing is aware of multiple cores' (multiple CPUs on one chip) argument is thin. The OS is aware and can effectively manage non-aware apps just fine across multiple cores.

You won't see many games that use multiple cores right now but...get a quad man, you won't be sorry and it's incredibly unlikely you'll wish you had fewer but slightly faster cores. Duals are great too but you may at some point wish you had spent a tiny bit more for double the cores.
 
I've been thinking about getting a quad but my friend keeps telling me not to. Here is exactly what he said to me:

My friend said:
Gaming:
No, CPU isn't the bottleneck and quickly after 2.2 an increase of CPU power is not worth it.(hes stating any C2D/quad over after 2.2ghz isn't worth it)

All else:
If you do anything CPU heavy, eg. rendering, math simulations, etc. yes, from what I read, atm, there is no real worthwhile benefit coming from a greater general "convenience", with either a 2,3 Ghz or any faster chip.

That's why either getting any sort of quad-core CPU or a very fast dualcore makes not too much sense to me right, besides showing it off, right now IMHO.

I'd rather wait for faster Ram and SSD's. With a very good graphics card and a semi-decent CPU, any system will rock one with an even slightly outdated or budget lightweight GFX card.
Click to expand...
 
Some questions you need to answer for yourself:

1. Do I wait for my computer to do any task that I wish was faster? We all wait for computers, but is there something that you sit back and say "I really wish this was faster?"
2. Is the time saved worth the price?
3. Are my games CPU limited?
4. Will my existing hardware support it?
5. Have I overclocked things as much as I can or am willing to?
6. Have I removed bottlenecks and optimized things as much as possible?

If the answers are "Yes" then go upgrade. If the answers are "No" then don't.

After looking at your sig, I think you may benefit more form a memory and hard drive upgrade. After that, I'd put money into the video card, or maybe do the video card first if you're lacking in game performance. Then the processor.
 
acstech said:
Some questions you need to answer for yourself:

1. Do I wait for my computer to do any task that I wish was faster? We all wait for computers, but is there something that you sit back and say "I really wish this was faster?"
2. Is the time saved worth the price?
3. Are my games CPU limited?
4. Will my existing hardware support it?
5. Have I overclocked things as much as I can or am willing to?
6. Have I removed bottlenecks and optimized things as much as possible?

If the answers are "Yes" then go upgrade. If the answers are "No" then don't.

After looking at your sig, I think you may benefit more form a memory and hard drive upgrade. After that, I'd put money into the video card, or maybe do the video card first if you're lacking in game performance. Then the processor.
Click to expand...


What do you think i should upgrade in my system?(sorry for thread steal)

Specs:

ntel Core 2 Duo (E4400)@2.0ghz cooled with Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro

Evga 680i SLI SE

4GB OCZ Gold XTC DDR2 800 (4x 1GB Sticks)

Evga Geforce 8600 GTS 256MB

Western Digital Caviar 160GB SATA HDD/ Seagate Barracuda 160GB both SATA

OCZ StealthXstream 600w PSU

Combo CD/DVD Drive

CoolerMaster RC-690 Case.

I dont OC. and my mobo does support the 65nm Quad CPU's
 
3far4shot said:
What do you think i should upgrade in my system?(sorry for thread steal)

Specs:
ntel Core 2 Duo (E4400)@2.0ghz cooled with Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro
Evga 680i SLI SE
4GB OCZ Gold XTC DDR2 800 (4x 1GB Sticks)
Evga Geforce 8600 GTS 256MB
Western Digital Caviar 160GB SATA HDD/ Seagate Barracuda 160GB both SATA
OCZ StealthXstream 600w PSU
Combo CD/DVD Drive
CoolerMaster RC-690 Case.
I dont OC. and my mobo does support the 65nm Quad CPU's
Click to expand...

1st of all WHY DON'T YOU OC? Seriously you could "upgrade" your system to 3Ghz with no problem at all. That alone would be a FREE upgrade and would make your system feel a lot snappier.

2nd, what do you do with your system?

Surf play around on the internet? Then upgrade nothing.

If its not snappy enough OVERCLOCK IT.

If you game, upgrade your videocard to an 8800GT and overclock your CPU to 3Ghz.

If you encode videos, etc... upgrade to a Q6600.
 
chrisf6969 said:
1st of all WHY DON'T YOU OC? Seriously you could "upgrade" your system to 3Ghz with no problem at all. That alone would be a FREE upgrade and would make your system feel a lot snappier.

2nd, what do you do with your system?

Surf play around on the internet? Then upgrade nothing.

If its not snappy enough OVERCLOCK IT.

If you game, upgrade your videocard to an 8800GT and overclock your CPU to 3Ghz.

If you encode videos, etc... upgrade to a Q6600.
Click to expand...


I just game and go on he internet alot.

But i just dont like to OC. I would just rather upgrade my whole CPU if i need a faster one.
 
Originally Posted by My friend
Gaming:
No, CPU isn't the bottleneck and quickly after 2.2 an increase of CPU power is not worth it.(hes stating any C2D/quad over after 2.2ghz isn't worth it)

All else:
If you do anything CPU heavy, eg. rendering, math simulations, etc. yes, from what I read, atm, there is no real worthwhile benefit coming from a greater general "convenience", with either a 2,3 Ghz or any faster chip.

That's why either getting any sort of quad-core CPU or a very fast dualcore makes not too much sense to me right, besides showing it off, right now IMHO.

I'd rather wait for faster Ram and SSD's. With a very good graphics card and a semi-decent CPU, any system will rock one with an even slightly outdated or budget lightweight GFX card.
Click to expand...

It plateaus around 3.2ghz, not 2.2ghz. There is a notable difference going from 2.2 -> 3.2. Based on his lack of knowledge in that regard, I'd say he's incorrect about anything else he happens to tell you. :p
 
yea 3.4Ghz removed the bottleneck for me entirely. Somewhere between 3.2 and 3.4 would be what you need.
 
3far4shot said:
I just game and go on he internet alot.

But i just dont like to OC. I would just rather upgrade my whole CPU if i need a faster one.
Click to expand...

If I was in your position, here's what I would do:

1. Address the video card situation. I'd either put in another 8600 (you have the SLI motherboard), or upgrade to something newer.

2. Your processor is a prime cadidate for overclocking. I know you don't like to, but it would give you noticeable results. Other than that, probably a E8600 would work nice, as it has a good stock speed.
 
acstech said:
If I was in your position, here's what I would do:

1. Address the video card situation. I'd either put in another 8600 (you have the SLI motherboard), or upgrade to something newer.

2. Your processor is a prime cadidate for overclocking. I know you don't like to, but it would give you noticeable results. Other than that, probably a E8600 would work nice, as it has a good stock speed.
Click to expand...

Thanks

Also, my motherboard doesnt support the 45nm CPU's sadly:( so a E6850 or Q6600 or Q6700?
 
I recently upgraded from an Athlon 4400 X2 to an Intel Core2Duo E8400 (dual core). I decided against quad core since I mainly play games and the only game that seems to slightly benefit is Unreal Tournament 3. I upgrade my CPU maybe once every two years so I figure next time around if quad cores has REALLY taken off and games are utilizing them then I'll get one.

I think multimedia apps (audio & video encoding) mostly benefit from quads.
 
My next CPU is gonna be a E8400 or E8500 e0 stepping. My goal is 4ghz.
 
In the OP's case, he's better off with the Q6600 CPU for a few reasons:
- His motherboard does not support 45nm CPUs. The 65nm E6750/E6850 are $5 to $10 more than the faster 45nm E8400/E8500. In fact, the $120 45nm E7200 performs on par with the E6750 and E6850. Thus, those 65nm CPUs have a poor bang for the buck value at their current retail pricing. If he could get a E6750 or E6850 for less than $100, then those CPUs would be a good choice.
- The Q6600 is a 65nm CPU and therefore compatible with his motherboard. It's the current best bang for the buck quad-core CPU around.
- The Q6700 is the same price as the faster Q9300, Q9400 or Q9450 CPUs.

However, I am not convinced that the OP needs to upgrade his CPU now. 3far4shot, just buy a new graphics card instead. You'll see a much higher increase in video games with a better video card like the HD4850 than you would with the Q6600. Overclock the E4400 to 3Ghz and it will last you quite a while.
 
Overclocking or upgrading aside, I currently have a Q6600 G0 that I've left stock and I'm actually selling my rig (see sig) to my friend and building another machine with the E8500 Wolfdale. There just isn't anything that makes use of the two other cores yet and the higher clock --- 2.4GHz ---> 3.16GHz is a big jump.

I've spec'ed out my new rig and it's going to be lasting me for quite some time.
I mutli-task on my Wolfdale E8400 at work and it keeps up just fine. I'm going back on my defense of the Quad series as even Windows, games and most common programs just don't use the extra cores.
 
3far4shot said:
I just game and go on he internet alot.

But i just dont like to OC. I would just rather upgrade my whole CPU if i need a faster one.
Click to expand...

3far4shot said:
Ya i need the new BIOS update. But i dislike BIOS updating(i am not much of a tweaker ,besides upgrading)
Click to expand...

"I don't like OC'ing.... I dislike BIOS updating. wah wah wah."

Seriously, stop being a pussy. :eek: It sounds like you're too afraid or too lazy.
I'm guessing its just fear of the unknown. Don't be a PUSSY!

Overclock your CPU. 3Ghz for Core2 architecture is pretty much a gimme. Nearly ANY chip can do it with very little effort.

Besides, you're more likely to damage your mortherboard when you upgrade CPU's (bent pins in the LGA pad) than you are to damage something by overclocking.(especially a MILD overclock like 3Ghz)

I'd much rather overclock to 3Ghz than take out a chip and put in a new one. For the same exact clock. (E8400 or E6850). In fact that would be stupid. It would be like putting new wheels on a bike to make you go faster, instead of just pedalling a LITTLE faster with smaller wheels.

JUST TRY to overclock. I guarantee you won't regret it. In fact, you'll be kicking yourself for having never tried it before. Nearly everyone in here can't be wrong.

Either go in to your BIOS and just raise the FSB a little bit at a time, then boot up & run Orthos for a little while. Until you get up to 3Ghz. If it works at 3Ghz, let Orthos run for 24 hours to test for true stability.

edit: don't use ntune. read bad things about it.
 
chrisf6969 said:
I don't like OC'ing.... I dislike BIOS updating. wah wah wah.

Seriously, stop being a pussy. It sounds like you're too afraid or too lazy.
I'm guessing its just fear of the unknown. Don't be a PUSSY!

Overclock your CPU. 3Ghz for Core2 architecture is pretty much a gimme. Nearly ANY chip can do it with very little effort.

Besides, you're more likely to damage your mortherboard when you upgrade CPU's (bent pins in the LGA pad) than you are to damage something overclocking. I'd much rather overclock to 3Ghz than take out a chip and put in a new one. For the same exact clock. (E8400 or E6850).

JUST TRY to overclock. I guarantee you won't regret it. In fact, you'll be kicking yourself for having never tried it before. Nearly everyone in here can't be wrong.

Either go in to your BIOS and just raise the FSB a little bit at a time, then boot up & run Orthos for a little while. Until you get up to 3Ghz. If it works at 3Ghz, let Orthos run for 24 hours to test for true stability.

In fact, you should be able to just overclock your motherboard from Windows if you're that lazy/wussy with nTune. http://www.nvidia.com/object/ntune_5.05.54.00.html
Click to expand...


I will try my best and not comment on the first part of post.(i have a really bad anger problem, even tho i am not a good fighter,lol)

My FSB is locked, how would i change the FSB speed if i can't change it? Do i need to set something else up first or what?

Also what if i set somthing wrong? should i just resaet the CMOS battery?

I would prefer to be lead step by step on what to do.
 
Start a post in the Intel motherboards forum, or start a new thread.

Called "Help a noob OC his e4400 on Evga 680i mobo." or something like that. (no offense on the noob part... just lets people know you need help)
I'd help you... but I'm a noob as far a Nvidia motherboards are concerned. The BIOS layout is a little different than Intel's.

Or search for 680i motherboard. Here a few links to get started.
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/9...i_chipset_core_2_enthusiasts_dream/index.html <--- Good step by step
 
chrisf6969 said:
Start a post in the Intel motherboards forum, or start a new thread.

Called "Help a noob OC his e4400 on Evga 680i mobo." or something like that. (no offense on the noob part... just lets people know you need help)
I'd help you... but I'm a noob as far a Nvidia motherboards are concerned. The BIOS layout is a little different than Intel's.

Or search for 680i motherboard. Here a few links to get started.
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/9...i_chipset_core_2_enthusiasts_dream/index.html <--- Good step by step
Click to expand...


Thanks alot, and none taken on the noob part.;)
 
Try setting FSB to unlinked then set FSB to 1200 FSB (300FSB).
300 x 10 mulitplier = 3.0Ghz
nearly everything else can be left on auto. You may need to increase the vcore a little.

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/477/5/ - some details views of the BIOS.

Nvidia's own guide to overclocking: http://www.nvidia.com/docs/CP/45121/nforce_680i_sli_overclocking.pdf

Generic OC'ing guide: http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1198647

An Asus 680i guide but different chip, so don't try you FSB as high as him:
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1220714&highlight=680i
 
I bet a bunch of those people who swear by performance of a quad, probably upgraded from a real old chip and don't realize that the new core 2's are just as fast, or faster in everything except rendering/productivity.
 
Copied & pasted from an Asus guide, and changed a few values for you:

LinkBoost: Disabled

FSB - Memory Clock Mode: Unlinked
x FSB - Memory Raio:
FSB (QDR), Mhz: 1200 (means 300FSB)
Actual FSB (QDR), Mhz: 1200
MEM (DDR), Mhz: 800 (means 400mhz speeds)
Actual MEM (DDR), Mhz: 800

Vcore Voltage: 1.3575
Memory Voltage:2.1
1.2v HT Voltage:1.35
NB Core Voltage:1.45
SB Core Voltage:1.5
CPU VTT Voltage:1.35
DDRII Controller Ref Voltage: leave it on auto
DDRII Channel A Ref Voltage: leave on auto
DDRII Channel B Ref Voltage: leave on auto

tCL (CAS Latency): 4 (set your own ram timings)
tRCD: 4 (set your own ram timings)
tRP: 4 (set your own ram timings)
tRAS: 12 (set your own ram timings)
Command Per Clock (CMD): 2 clock (2T)

Advance Memory Settings
tRRD: AUTO
tRC: AUTO
tWR: AUTO
tWTR: AUTO
tREF: AUTO
tRD: AUTO
tRFC: 42 works best according EVA2000 when overclocking the CPU/RAM
Async Latency: AUTO

CPU Spread Spectrum: Disabled
PCIE Spread Spectrum: Disabled
MCP PCIE Spread Spectrum: Disabled (Important setting to lock when OC'ing)
SATA Spread Spectrum: Disabled (Important setting to lock when OC'ing)
LDT Spread Spectrum: Disabled

CPU Internal Thermal Control: Disabled
Limit CPUID MaxVal: Disabled
Enhanced C1 (C1E): Disabled
Execute Disable Bit: Disabled
Virtualization Technology: Disabled
Enhanced Intel Speedstep Tech: Disabled
LDT Frequency: 5x

PCIEX16_1 Frequency (Mhz): 100
PCIEX16_2 Frequency (Mhz): 100
PCIEX16_3 Frequency (Mhz): 100
SPP<->MCP Ref Clock, Mhz: 200 (Important setting to lock when OC'ing)
 
3far4shot said:
I just game and go on he internet alot.
But i just dont like to OC. I would just rather upgrade my whole CPU if i need a faster one.
Click to expand...

3far4shot said:
Ya i need the new BIOS update. But i dislike BIOS updating(i am not much of a tweaker ,besides upgrading)
Click to expand...

Somebody is about to get his [H]ard|Card revoked!

Seriously though, just ask for help here. There are more than a couple guides on this site alone on OC and BIOS flashing.
 
acstech said:
I prefer the low latency stuff for a bit more money:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227270
Not that there's anything wrong with Kingston.

And the 750GB drive with 32MB cache:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822152100
Now I haven't looked at any reviews, but I've been pleased with the Samsung drives I've used / sold.
Click to expand...
I like that RAM but the HDD is slower than the 640. And he really doesnt need the space looking at what he has now.
 
bazookaworm:
Nothing against quad-core processors, they are great for those who need them, but
based on your requirements and what you have stated you want to do, I would suggest getting an E8400 dual-core, good pricing on them now. And they provide plenty of speed, regardless if they are overclocked or not:)
 
i built my 1st comp ever last yr and with in the first week after i built i messed with the settings and overclocked my e6600 3.2 ghz. its pretty simple, raise the FSB, raise vcore, boot windows, run orthos (or occt, etc.). if you get an error try raising vcore or lower FSB, your choice, then run again, and repeat. And if you pass orthos for like 12-24 hours, raise FSB, vcore, and repeat.
 
what about the OP's cpu cooling ???

If he has a 'stock' cooler ... can [or should] he still OC ???
 
Get the Quads if you are into video encoding n such. C2d should do the job very well for gaming. :)
 
bigdogchris said:
I bet a bunch of those people who swear by performance of a quad, probably upgraded from a real old chip and don't realize that the new core 2's are just as fast, or faster in everything except rendering/productivity.
Click to expand...

That's the thing. The Core 2 and Quad have similar performance in all apps except for encoding/productivity/etc (And a quad core will decimate a dual core in these apps). If they're at a similar price there is not really any reason not to go for a quad core.
 
3far4shot said:
If i screw something up, i can just reseat the CMOS battery on the mobo right?
Click to expand...

Yes you can just reset / clear CMOS, but it probably wont resort to that.

If you gradually raise the FSB a little at a time it will boot, and then you test for stability. Windows will work fine usually, you just get errors reported in the Orthos app. when its under 100% load.
Also, most modern BIOS's if you overclock too far, it will automatically rest the BIOS to either your last successful boot or to stock/default FSB settings.

Way back in the day when you only had 66Mhz FSB or 100Mhz FSB, you'd try for the next higher notch & if it failed you just reset CMOS.

But with current BIOS's you just raise the FSB a little at a time. You've got a lot of headroom, so I'd start at like 1000Mhz FSB, which should give you a 2.5Ghz clock, which should still work at stock vcore, etc.. Then you can try raising the FSB like 20Mhz at a time since your BIOS lists the FSB as quad pumped. Quad pump = the 4x higher #, so you're really only raising it 5Mhz or 50Mhz CPU clock at a time.

Or since you're so scared, just leave it at 2.5Ghz for a while and play with things. You'll probably notice things a little faster. Run some benchmarks before & after. Once you see how easy that 500Mhz overclock was... you'll want another 500Mhz easy for a STILL EASY 3.0Ghz. After that (3Ghz)... you MIGHT need to start tweaking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top