Dual vs Quad Core. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Unofficial Tech Support By Gamers for Gamers



Message

Nemo121 -> Dual vs Quad Core. (2/7/2009 10:12:55 PM)

Well, I'm looking into a new system since I'd like to play some of my FPS and flightsims after my last system got FUBAR'ed... The problem is that I'm totally out of touch with all the new dual core vs quad core jazz.

Basically I will very rarely be doing more than 2 things at once namely playing War in The Pacific and playing music + having a few we windows open in the background. If I'm playing an FPS or flightsim then I'm unlikely to be doing anything else at the same time. I'd like a little future-proofing but amn't interested in going crazy on it ( especially as computer components etc are a lot more expensive in Ireland than in the US or UK )....

So, here's what I've been looking at as more than meeting my needs ( occasional FPS games, some flightsims and strategy games ).

CPU: Intel Core 2 Q9450 ( 12Mb Level 2 cache, FSB 1333Mhz, Clock speed 2.66 )
Motherboard: Obviously the bus will be 1333 to best match the Q9450
Memory: 4Gb DDR2 SDRAM
Video Card: 1 Gb GeForce GTX 280
HD: 750 Gb to 1 Tb ( already have 1.3 Tb of external storage so not too bothered about getting the maximum possible HD. Probably will go for the 1 Tb one ).
Sound: SB XFi Titanium.

Basically the rest of the spec will be of a level with the above.

My main issue is that I want to avoid really obvious bottlenecks ( e.g incompatible bus speeds ) or getting a quad core at additional cost when a dual core would really be all I'd ever use.

My concern is ( and I've had different people tell me different things ) that if I get a dual core then if a virus scanner is running in the background I lose 50% of my CPU cycles when, if I had a quad core and it only needed 1 core that I'd be able to devote the other 75% of the CPU cycles to the game ( thus minimising lag while other components waited on the CPU to get free ).

In addition is there any really significant difference between the Phenom 2 or 4 and the Intel Dual or Quad Cores.... I don't really see any clear advantage one way or the other except that in the benchmarks I've seen at the price range I'm interested in the Intel Quad Cores seem to do a bit better with 3D procession than the Phenom 2 or 4s.

Also it seems that the quad core would most assuredly be more future-proof than the dual core as things are only now beginning to take advantage of the quad core architecture.



hadberz -> RE: Dual vs Quad Core. (2/8/2009 3:09:37 AM)

Here is my setup. The specs you listed will smoke this and I have yet to find a game that will not play on this. I highly recommend the hard drive I have below. I wouldn't buy a soundcard, unless your into audio. Integrated sound on the motherboard sounds great now days. I went with AMD cause of cheaper prices.

AMD Phenom(tm) 9950 Quad-Core Processor (4 CPUs), ~2.6GHz
4094MB RAM Corsair Dominator DDR 2 1066 timings 5,5,5,15
WD Caviar Black 1 TB, 3 Gb/s, 32 MB Cache, 7200 RPM
ATI Radeon HD 4850 512MB
SyncMaster 2253BW/2253LW,SyncMaster Magic CX2253BW(Digital) 22"
Speakers (Realtek High Definition Audio)
MSI K9A2 Platinum V1
Thermaltake SopranoRS with OCZ GameXstream 700 watt power supply



2ndACR -> RE: Dual vs Quad Core. (2/8/2009 4:34:19 AM)

I have a Gateway FX4710-UB003A

Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300 Quad Core
6 GB DDR2 Dual Channel
640GB HD
NVIDIA 9800GT
2.5 ghz
Windows Vista 64 bit

Runs Crysis on highest levels without a hitch......hardly ever here my fans spool up either. IMO, it is the greatest gaming rig that has been massed produced for the cost. I paid a whopping thousand US for the PC only. I already had everything else, got the keyboard and standard goodies with it.

I have yet to find a game I can not run on it.



SlickWilhelm -> RE: Dual vs Quad Core. (3/24/2009 3:31:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Well, I'm looking into a new system since I'd like to play some of my FPS and flight sims after my last system got FUBAR'ed... The problem is that I'm totally out of touch with all the new dual core vs quad core jazz.



I'm starting to look at building a new gaming rig, too. If you were just into playing WitP and other wargames, the system you listed would be way overkill. However, since you mentioned wanting to play flight sims, you're going to need the fastest thing on three wheels. [:)]

IMO, flight simmers are the folks who need the beefiest rigs.

After doing some research, here's what I'd recommend for you(and me):

- An Intel i7 Quad CPU
- An LGA 1366 architecture based motherboard
- 6GB Triple Channel DDR3 1600 SD-RAM(You need tons of RAM for all those ground textures in your flight sims)
- 2x ATI Radeon 4870 512MB running in crossfire configuration. From what I hear, two of these 512MB cards are cheaper than one 1GB card. Also, make sure the motherboard you get supports crossfire.
- WD VelociRaptor 300GB 10,000 RPM SATA. A fast hard drive is VERY important for flight sims, so that the loading of textures from the HD into memory doesn't produce "lag" during flight.
- A very good name brand power supply of at least 700 watts. A good power supply will ensure that any strange behavior is kept to a minimum due to power drain, etc.

All the rest of the components are relatively unimportant. Just make sure to get a good case with lots of large fans for air flow. The larger the case fans, the slower they have to rotate, which means the quieter they are.

Not including the monitor, I think you can expect to pay about $1500 for a good beefy flight sim gaming rig with the above mentioned items.

Of course, as with all hardware, this rig will be obsolescent within a few months. But it should provide you with at least a few years of flight sim nirvana. [:)]



06 Maestro -> RE: Dual vs Quad Core. (3/24/2009 6:53:15 PM)

No doubt the 4 core would be better, but would it be noticeable? My old Athlon 64 3500 would run flight sims very well.

I just upgraded to an Athlon 64 duel core 5200, ASUSTech M47A Pro MB, 9600 512mb NVIDIA Card,700 watt PS and a starter stick of 2 gigs of ram.-my total cost was just over 500 bucks. This new system is noticeably better than the old one-it even plays WW1 smoothly.[;)]


Here is one little tool you may find useful in choosing the correct capacity of a power supply for your chosen config.

http://support.asus.com/PowerSupplyCalculator/PSCalculator.aspx?SLanguage=en-us



SlickWilhelm -> RE: Dual vs Quad Core. (3/24/2009 11:26:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro

..it even plays WW1 smoothly.[;)]



Wow, that is a fast system! [:D]



06 Maestro -> RE: Dual vs Quad Core. (3/25/2009 12:28:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Slick Wilhelm


quote:

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro

..it even plays WW1 smoothly.[;)]



Wow, that is a fast system! [:D]



You know it[:D]



V22 Osprey -> RE: Dual vs Quad Core. (3/25/2009 3:34:14 AM)

My setup:
AMD Phenom Quad CPU
500 GB Harddrive
Nvidia Geforce GTX 295 with 1,768MB of Video memory
1200 watt power supply
12BG of RAM
VISTA Ultimate 64bit
[&o][&o][&o][&o][&o]

AMD is the way to go.The intel processors are way over priced.You could get a faster AMD for half the price of an Intel.

Also try to get the best possible supply.With my 1200 watt power supply I'm future proof for years.

My setup cost a whole bunch as you can imagine....there's nothing this rig can't run.(especially when I get another GTX 295, Oh my GOSH!!!)[:D]



SlickWilhelm -> RE: Dual vs Quad Core. (4/24/2009 3:30:05 PM)

Nemo, I went ahead and purchased all the parts I listed in my initial post. What clinched the deal for me with the Intel i7 quad-core is a something that I read over on tomshardware.com.

In their article on over-clocking the i7, they mentioned that the i7 has something called "Turbo mode", which when running a single threaded application like most flight sims, the cpu wil automagically "borrow" ghz from the other three cores and increase the core speed of that single core being used. The default core speed of the i7 920 model is 2.66ghz, and safe overclocking can be done to 4.0ghz and beyond, depending on your cooling setup. That being said, turbo mode is only available at 3.33ghz and below.

So, imo it was worth an extra $50 or so to get the i7. Now all I need to decide upon is whether to spring for 64-bit Vista or just use Win XP.



hadberz -> RE: Dual vs Quad Core. (4/24/2009 5:02:04 PM)

I highly recommend Vista 64 bit. You can always run WinXP using virtualpc software, I believe it's free from Microsoft.



06 Maestro -> RE: Dual vs Quad Core. (4/25/2009 3:06:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: hadberz

I highly recommend Vista 64 bit. You can always run WinXP using virtualpc software, I believe it's free from Microsoft.


Will that program run games which are designed to run on Vista 32 bit, such as CoG EA?



hadberz -> RE: Dual vs Quad Core. (5/17/2009 2:52:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro


quote:

ORIGINAL: hadberz

I highly recommend Vista 64 bit. You can always run WinXP using virtualpc software, I believe it's free from Microsoft.


Will that program run games which are designed to run on Vista 32 bit, such as CoG EA?


Not sure how I missed this [:)]

If you mean the new Crown of Glory EE it runs fine on Vista 64bit, so no reason to use the virtualpc. I believe virtual pc can do everything but render 3d graphics.



Floyd -> RE: Dual vs Quad Core. (5/19/2009 8:50:56 PM)

How many cores do you need? Some info:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/multi-core-cpu,2280.html




Nikademus -> RE: Dual vs Quad Core. (5/22/2009 8:20:16 PM)

great article.

thx



rhias -> RE: Dual vs Quad Core. (12/2/2009 8:23:30 AM)

Duals still dominate most tasks and they will always OC higher than their quad counterparts with less cooling and power usage required. The exceptions are encoding and rendering.
==========================================================
Nashville Real Estate
fascia boards




Qwixt -> RE: Dual vs Quad Core. (12/21/2009 7:32:32 PM)

Make sure you go with a 64 bit OS, otherwise a lot of that memory will go to waste. Also, I would ditch the SB board and use the motherboard sound, then go for a iCore7 with the price difference.



rhenu -> RE: Dual vs Quad Core. (12/31/2009 12:01:38 PM)

In overclocker circles, the hot topic of the moment is whether or not a quad-core CPU is better than a dual-core. We did many hardware tests to find out. After all, one of the most important questions when you try to put together a powerful new system is which combination of Core 2 processor, motherboard and RAM offers the best value for your money. One of the prerequisites is, naturally, that the system has to offer good overclocking potential in order give you high performance at a low price. That means that you can forget about buying a preconfigured system online or from your local computer around the corner - instead you should have full control over the choice of components. In this article, we present a complete solution consisting of a processor, a cooler, a motherboard and RAM that may become an item on the wish list of many of our readers. We also guide you through the configuration and show you what settings need to be selected for the system to run both stably and fast. Thanks to the ongoing bitter price war between AMD and Intel, CPU prices are in a continual free fall. This is especially true for the more brawny CPUs. The competition extends to the retail level as well, with brick-and-mortar stores and online retailers trying to undercut each other on a daily basis. Obviously, the buyer is the clear winner here, who benefits from lower prices practically every day.
______________________________________________________________
Snack vending machines
Promotional Items




rakshu -> RE: Dual vs Quad Core. (1/6/2010 8:11:39 AM)

From the posting there appears to be a great deal of misconception of what can be done with multiple cores. Each core is a separate and distinct Central Processing Unit (CPU). Each core is scheduled separately by the OS. Even if an application is single-threaded, additional cores will speed up processing by handling ancillary/background tasks needed to run the system. A simple example, your editing program is running on a core, instead of interrupted that core to run your real-time protection program or even to update the clock on the task bar, a different core be assigned those tasks leaving the first core free to continue running your editing application. Multi-threaded application once written do not require re-writing unless the fundamental architecture changes. PS I am using a Dual Quad Core Computer (eight cores).
______________________________________________________________________
website marketing
Web Development Sydney




ajith -> RE: Dual vs Quad Core. (1/7/2010 10:53:48 AM)

Any modern processor will handle way more memory than you could fit in a mainstream motherboard. The critical aspect is the operating system. 32 bit OSs which are the majority of the ones currently installed hit the wall at 3.2 GB of RAM. However, for the same price you can buy XP, Vista, etc. in 64 bit and then the amount of RAM you can access is effectively unreachable by the home computer user. I have 12 GB RAM in my new i7 920 with 64 bit Vista and it's AMAZING! ____________________________________________________________
nutrition counseling pregnancy
women and self esteem




dogancan -> RE: Dual vs Quad Core. (1/7/2010 11:14:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ajith

Any modern processor will handle way more memory than you could fit in a mainstream motherboard. The critical aspect is the operating system. 32 bit OSs which are the majority of the ones currently installed hit the wall at 3.2 GB of RAM. However, for the same price you can buy XP, Vista, etc. in 64 bit and then the amount of RAM you can access is effectively unreachable by the home computer user. I have 12 GB RAM in my new i7 920 with 64 bit Vista and it's AMAZING! ____________________________________________________________


thought having a 64bit machine needed something more than a 64bit OS, like a 64bit motherboard or something.[&:]



nenje -> RE: Dual vs Quad Core. (1/9/2010 4:24:11 AM)

Maybe in Windows the time of the Quad core or even the Duo core hasn't arrived yet, but in Linux the multicore processors have been supported for a lot longer and I wouldn't be surprised if you find many more apps in Linux that are natively multithreaded. How about rerunning your comparison in Linux and see who's the winner there where neither processor has the advantage. Both are well supported in Linux where as many of the tests in Windows lopsidedly tainted toward Intel products. In other words, try a scenario where the processors are treated equally by the testing software. ______________________________________________________________
Start a home based business
Andrew Reynolds




sameera -> RE: Dual vs Quad Core. (1/11/2010 10:02:17 AM)

You say Video editing; That application tells me you are a candidate for a quad core. You got a few answers from folks that were just spouting off about the basic question. Most folks are fine with dual core. I have an E8500 dual core. I do gaming. I don't do anything video or image editing. You do, so you quad core fits right up your alley.______________________________________________________
fragrance .com parfums
wedding gowns




PILA -> RE: Dual vs Quad Core. (1/16/2010 6:56:49 AM)

From the posting there appears to be a great deal of misconception of what can be done with multiple cores. Each core is a separate and distinct Central Processing Unit (CPU). Each core is scheduled separately by the OS. Even if an application is single-threaded, additional cores will speed up processing by handling ancillary/background tasks needed to run the system. A simple example, your editing program is running on a core, instead of interrupted that core to run your real-time protection program or even to update the clock on the task bar, a different core be assigned those tasks leaving the first core free to continue running your editing application. Multi-threaded application once written do not require re-writing unless the fundamental architecture changes. PS I am using a Dual Quad Core Computer (eight cores).
________________________________________________________
business computer software
Car Games



leena -> RE: Dual vs Quad Core. (1/18/2010 11:13:16 AM)

Yes, because although the multithreadedness of applications is inevitable, making the quad core a good choice for a long term system build, the validity of DX10 is highly questionable and may be entirely a moot point as we approach DX11. We're already at DX10.1 and many believe that the day of proprietary graphic standards may be at an end.
___________________________________________________
Glass Blocks
how to get rid of mice naturally




thiagu -> RE: Dual vs Quad Core. (1/19/2010 9:19:03 AM)

I would suggest you to get an intel duo processor ....

mayB an E8400 or E7500

but ya didnt state ur budget cause if u r on a budget crysis u may consider getting an AMD x2 processor....

In the end since u arent gaming its best to go for an INTEL processor =)

___________________________________________________________
santiburi samui
testosterone enanthate




RANH -> RE: Dual vs Quad Core. (1/25/2010 9:11:40 AM)

I'm just wondering as how long have AMD and Intel had a 64-bit chip out there? I'm thinking a while and so there is a chicken and egg sort of battle going on about the 64 bit stuff as there is a 64-bit Windows XP version as well as Vista but there are driver issues that seem to be needed for wide acceptance but the makers of the hardware need wide acceptance before making those drivers, so what will break the stalemate? In the server world there are some applications that will require a 64-bit O/S like Exchange 2007 but I wonder what desktop or laptop application could need more than 4 GB of memory to run properly.
______________________________________________________________
Indianapolis personal injury lawyer
Illinois life insurance lawyers




madgamer2 -> RE: Dual vs Quad Core. (1/30/2010 1:29:50 AM)

Well I can only speak for myself but tests on my own system using either the on board sound on my M3N72-D Asus Mobo and my USB 2.0 external Asus sound card and 5.1 sound system. The sound system is just your basic mid priced system.
My tests show that the on board was slower and in my opinion not as good quality as the USB Asus sound card and speaker system. I used the same speakers in both tests so if your playing games on board is not that good and does slow your system down but then this is just me.

madgamer



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.078125