Quad core vs dual core

[JDogg]

If I got the Q9650 would I get less fps than if I got the E8600, with the ATI 4890. I only really play CoD, a little photoshop and sony vegas every now and then, nothing heavy. Basically my question is, would I have less performance gaming wise with the quad core. Also, kingston ram vs corsair, which is better?. The price difference between the dual and quad is only about 70 bucks, so price doesn't matter. Also, ATI 4880 or the GTX275, or something similar in price to the 4890.

For reference http://www.msy.com.au/Parts/PARTS.pdf

[helium]

^ what he said

[BlueDamselfly]

Well, when i bought my comp, they gave me choice between 2.83 quad, and 3.12 dual, and they showed me fps and stuff on crysis, and dual was way better, they explained it by telling me that only 2 core was used in the games today ( so if you get the quad, while playing, its kinda like if u d have a dual ), and they told me to wait about 2-3 years before considering to buy a quad core. Because in 2-3 years, game will use all the 4 cores.

so ye, for now quad is quite useless, but if you re making a lot of video, because then it requires comp to do calculus and stuff and the 4 cores are used.

[waywaaaard]

supreme commander supports up to 8 cpus ^^

[Soviet]

by decent cooling KS means this

[Infinite]

by decent cooling KS means this

perfect! I was looking into buying a fan for my cpu eventually so i could OC it to around 3-3.4 ghz . I have a Q6600 and no fan on it or anything and it goes up to temps of about 60 C while playing cod4 :s.

[Infinite]

by decent cooling KS means this

perfect! I was looking into buying a fan for my cpu eventually so i could OC it to around 3-3.4 ghz . I have a Q6600 and no fan on it or anything and it goes up to temps of about 60 C while playing cod4 :s.

You DO have a fan on it - it would actually physically catch fire in <1minute with no cooling on it.

If I do, It's invisible. But I do have a lot of fans in my case atm. I'm pretty certain that I do not have a fan on it.

EDIT: I'd lol if it caught on fire because I could then brag that my computer was so fast that it caught on fire .

[Soviet]

Just a note to you guys, never touch your cpu right after you shut down your computer, it hurts

[Drofder2004]

I have a Q6600 and no fan on it or anything

I must see this setup, please post a pic.

[JDogg]

Dual core speed:3.33ghz
Quad core speed:3.0 ghz
http://processorfinder.intel.com/detail ... Spec=SLB9L
http://processorfinder.intel.com/detail ... Spec=SLB8W

Is that a big gap? as I said before, the price difference is tiny, I'm just wondering if 3.33 would be a significant amount faster than 3.0. I run alot of apps at one time (Xfire, Gtalk, Itunes, Tweetdeck, Firefox) and I occasionally use photoshop and sony vegas etc. But really I just want to run CoD4 and WaW with a decent fps maybe TF2 CSS some times.

[Infinite]

I have a Q6600 and no fan on it or anything

I must see this setup, please post a pic.

Ill post a pic a bit later (probably when I reformat my computer) because I have a cold right now or something (SWINE FLU) and I don't feel like taking my computer apart :<.

[helium]

I've only read about 2 posts in this topic, so tell me if I'm going offtopic or something...

Technically a dual core performs better in most NEW games that do not support quad core (most big new games support it, or will probably be patched to support it in the future), but what I do when I play games is to restrict any other application from using 2 of my cores, which will only be used on a game. This lets the 2 cores focus only on one single application (for example cod4) and gives just as good fps (or even better sometimes) than a dual core with higher clock frequency.

If you want a good computer I suggest you seriously get a QC. And also, if you know your stuff with computers you can overclock it. Most QC's (especially the Q6600) can be clocked pretty hardcore. I have a £20 CPU fan and clocked my Q6600 from 2.4 to 3.4 ghz.

[JDogg]

I've only read about 2 posts in this topic, so tell me if I'm going offtopic or something...

Technically a dual core performs better in most NEW games that do not support quad core (most big new games support it, or will probably be patched to support it in the future), but what I do when I play games is to restrict any other application from using 2 of my cores, which will only be used on a game. This lets the 2 cores focus only on one single application (for example cod4) and gives just as good fps (or even better sometimes) than a dual core with higher clock frequency.

If you want a good computer I suggest you seriously get a QC. And also, if you know your stuff with computers you can overclock it. Most QC's (especially the Q6600) can be clocked pretty hardcore. I have a £20 CPU fan and clocked my Q6600 from 2.4 to 3.4 ghz.

Thanks, that's not off topic at all btw, one of the few posts that actually helped me out . I might end up overclocking eventually, but for the first few months, until I get some good cooling and stuff, I'll keep it at the stock 3.0.

[RedSkyNL]

I'll go a little deeper on the QC vs DC:

First of all, don't focus on Crysis. It's a good game, but don't try to make a PC that runs Crysis on the best of the best, that's just waste.

Then the processor issue. Dual Cores perfom better since most of the games only support 2 cores (as most of the guys said). Alltough, the future is Quad Core. This will take some time, since it will cost so much more for game developers to develop a game that support Quad Core technique. Some games do support it (don't know them actually), but for developers like Activision, EA, etc. it will cost so much more, and they don't wanna lose customers.

So if you have the choice between a Dual Core with 3,2 GHz, and a 3,0 Quad which might cost 30-40 buck more, i would suggest to get that Quad Core, since i read you also use Vegas/Photoshop sometime, and Quad Core renders so much faster. Also you won't notice a BIG gap in games between the QC and the DC.

Good luck!

[JDogg]

I'll go a little deeper on the QC vs DC:

First of all, don't focus on Crysis. It's a good game, but don't try to make a PC that runs Crysis on the best of the best, that's just waste.

Then the processor issue. Dual Cores perfom better since most of the games only support 2 cores (as most of the guys said). Alltough, the future is Quad Core. This will take some time, since it will cost so much more for game developers to develop a game that support Quad Core technique. Some games do support it (don't know them actually), but for developers like Activision, EA, etc. it will cost so much more, and they don't wanna lose customers.

So if you have the choice between a Dual Core with 3,2 GHz, and a 3,0 Quad which might cost 30-40 buck more, i would suggest to get that Quad Core, since i read you also use Vegas/Photoshop sometime, and Quad Core renders so much faster. Also you won't notice a BIG gap in games between the QC and the DC.

Good luck!

Thanks a lot, I'll get the Quad then. By the way, I just installed Crysis, really fun game, it runs at about 50 fps on the lowest settings on my current machine, but does anyone know if it supports 4 cores?.