Core 2 Quad vs Core 2 Duo

So I'm in the market for a new processor and I've been looking at either a Q6600 or an E8400/500 cuz they're in my price range. From a gaming standpoint it sounds like most games are built with two cores in mind so my main question is using a quad core going to yield inferior results or comparable results? How does it work, will the game only use two cores on a quad core processor? I've read posts by people saying Core 2 Duo would be better for gaming, but is that based on the fact that you just aren't utilizing a quad or because a duo actually performs better?

Olster

You won't get inferior results out of a Quadcore, but neither will they be better. Right now, most programs (whether it be games, applications, graphics software, etc) don't support quad core processing. Some programs dont even support the dualcore architecture yet. Give it another 2 years, let prices drop, allow more programs to support the quad core technology and it'll be a better choice.

As the others have stated - quads are good for applications (that support quads) like video editing, sound editing, etc... Dualcores are currently the winners in the gaming market, but also take in account their supported speeds/multipliers - i.e a q6600 is gonna perform better than an E2100.

Verdict: Get the E8400...or whatever the dualcore was taht you were looking at.

Well i personally think were going to start seeing more and more games take advantage of quad pretty soon. Apparently Assassins Creed runs generally smoother with qud as does UT3 and a few others. But for now get what suits your usage patterns, you could easily drop a quad into your board when neccessary.

It's either Dualcore or I7 quads. No point getting Core 2 Quad when games don't use 4 cores. And when they do, 8 threads > 4 cores.redneckdouglas

But for i7 you will need a new mobo and DDR3 RAM which is currently a rip off!

Games that down use quad core? Please.... I know a few games that will support quad core cpu's. Not many, but still. Plus, if you do any kind of moive editing, the quad will be much faster. I upgraded from a eaul core e600 to a quad q6600 in august, and have never looked back. plus the new i7 motherboards arent even out yet, and ddr 3 ram isnt cheap.

Personally, I would go for the quad. Dual core may be faster, but the quad will have more more headroom when more games are optimized for it.

wtf spybot... apparetly EVERYONE is forgetting one very simple aspect: Overclocking...GTR2addict

what ever you do, do NOT buy the e8500, it is not any different from the e8400, except for $$$Predator123

what ever you do, do NOT buy the e8500, it is not any different from the e8400, except for $$$Predator123

Except for the higher stock clock and mulitplier.

[QUOTE="Predator123"]what ever you do, do NOT buy the e8500, it is not any different from the e8400, except for $$$Staryoshi87

Except for the higher stock clock and mulitplier.

i look at it like this, my e8400 is now at 3.3ghz, it took me five minutes to do that, and on air, i have never overclocked before, and now i have two cores running at 3.3ghz vs 4 cores running at 2.4 or 3.0 ghz(overclocked, and my 300mhz overclock was probably easier to do than the 600mhz OC on that Q6600), when games use at most two cores, except for supreme commander, but that runs no problem on my comp, not to mention e8*00 series is 45nm and runs cooler than the Q6600, and the e8400 is only $165 or $170, on newegg, get the e8400, OC it, and two years from now when more than half the games are running on quads, upgradewolfdogelite

Comparing a 65nm quad to a 45nm duo in therms of heat and overclockability?

watch out, Octa-Core will be out soon, then that will be the best!

[QUOTE="wolfdogelite"]i look at it like this, my e8400 is now at 3.3ghz, it took me five minutes to do that, and on air, i have never overclocked before, and now i have two cores running at 3.3ghz vs 4 cores running at 2.4 or 3.0 ghz(overclocked, and my 300mhz overclock was probably easier to do than the 600mhz OC on that Q6600), when games use at most two cores, except for supreme commander, but that runs no problem on my comp, not to mention e8*00 series is 45nm and runs cooler than the Q6600, and the e8400 is only $165 or $170, on newegg, get the e8400, OC it, and two years from now when more than half the games are running on quads, upgradeBebi_vegeta

Comparing a 65nm quad to a 45nm duo in therms of heat and overclockability?

um ya, i think its easier to overclock a 3.0 ghz e8400 to 3.3ghz than it is to overclock a 2.4 quad to similar speeds, and yes, 45nm architecture is known to run much cooler, less power draw too

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="wolfdogelite"]i look at it like this, my e8400 is now at 3.3ghz, it took me five minutes to do that, and on air, i have never overclocked before, and now i have two cores running at 3.3ghz vs 4 cores running at 2.4 or 3.0 ghz(overclocked, and my 300mhz overclock was probably easier to do than the 600mhz OC on that Q6600), when games use at most two cores, except for supreme commander, but that runs no problem on my comp, not to mention e8*00 series is 45nm and runs cooler than the Q6600, and the e8400 is only $165 or $170, on newegg, get the e8400, OC it, and two years from now when more than half the games are running on quads, upgradewolfdogelite

Comparing a 65nm quad to a 45nm duo in therms of heat and overclockability?

um ya, i think its easier to overclock a 3.0 ghz e8400 to 3.3ghz than it is to overclock a 2.4 quad to similar speeds, and yes, 45nm architecture is known to run much cooler, less power draw too

I just wanted to point out that it was a bas comparaison...

You have a Quad 65nm vs duo 45nm... I wonder who can overclock better and less heat... it's very obvious.

[QUOTE="wolfdogelite"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

Comparing a 65nm quad to a 45nm duo in therms of heat and overclockability?

Bebi_vegeta

um ya, i think its easier to overclock a 3.0 ghz e8400 to 3.3ghz than it is to overclock a 2.4 quad to similar speeds, and yes, 45nm architecture is known to run much cooler, less power draw too

I just wanted to point out that it was a bas comparaison...

You have a Quad 65nm vs duo 45nm... I wonder who can overclock better and less heat... it's very obvious.

maybe not to everyone, i didnt know that 6 months ago, im just sayin

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="wolfdogelite"]

 

um ya, i think its easier to overclock a 3.0 ghz e8400 to 3.3ghz than it is to overclock a 2.4 quad to similar speeds, and yes, 45nm architecture is known to run much cooler, less power draw too

wolfdogelite

I just wanted to point out that it was a bas comparaison...

You have a Quad 65nm vs duo 45nm... I wonder who can overclock better and less heat... it's very obvious.

maybe not to everyone, i didnt know that 6 months ago, im just sayin

Comon, you have 2 more cores and bigger transistors... it's simple equation.

lol after reading this i dont no what to pick :(, i was looking myself at a E8600, but dunno now to get the E8400 and E8500,

what ever you do, do NOT buy the e8500, it is not any different from the e8400, except for $$$Predator123

Sorry to go abit off topic but a few in here seem to know what they talknig about what would be better to OC and to around what speed

Also in comparision to a Q9550 which i was looking at getting,

(Planning on keeping this system for 3-5 years

Cheers Trent

Gah. I don't know what to get either. I don't often upgrade my computer. The last time I upgraded was early 2006. And I'm thinking, it'd be wise to get a 6600 and I'd get an FPS boost in 6-12 months when games become quad built. Assuming I'll be keeping my PC for a good two years, and I won't be doing too much video editing (my brother does do a lot of 3d modelling and rendering, but that's certainly of secondary importance, gaming being the primary), and I probably won't be running much in the background of games, are there any future based advantages of buying the 6600?

And currently, how much better does the 8500 run games that don't support quad core. The 8500 and the 6600 are also both around the same price from where I am.

[QUOTE="wolfdogelite"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

Comparing a 65nm quad to a 45nm duo in therms of heat and overclockability?

Bebi_vegeta

um ya, i think its easier to overclock a 3.0 ghz e8400 to 3.3ghz than it is to overclock a 2.4 quad to similar speeds, and yes, 45nm architecture is known to run much cooler, less power draw too

I just wanted to point out that it was a bas comparaison...

You have a Quad 65nm vs duo 45nm... I wonder who can overclock better and less heat... it's very obvious.

The TC is deciding between the 2 CPU's and what's better is all that matters.If the quad is 65nm then that's it's drawback and there's nothing bias in mentioning it.:|

Since you can get a Q6600 for under £130 and then overclock it to 3,3GHz and beyond I can't see much reason to restrict yourself to just 2 cores.

It also comes down to how often you upgrade/replace your PC. Yes at the moment there are not many games out that will make good use of dual or quad core processors, but more are coming, and over the next couple of years more and more programs will be designed to make use of them. Since quad cores are widely available, i7 just starting, more and more programs will be designed to utilise multiple cores and not just limit themselves to dual.

Since you can get a Q6600 for under £130 and then overclock it to 3,3GHz and beyond I can't see much reason to restrict yourself to just 2 cores.

It also comes down to how often you upgrade/replace your PC. Yes at the moment there are not many games out that will make good use of dual or quad core processors, but more are coming, and over the next couple of years more and more programs will be designed to make use of them. Since quad cores are widely available, i7 just starting, more and more programs will be designed to utilise multiple cores and not just limit themselves to dual.

Avenger1324

PS. Dang. 130W TDP for an i7? My 9450's only rated at 95W.

[QUOTE="Avenger1324"]

Since you can get a Q6600 for under £130 and then overclock it to 3,3GHz and beyond I can't see much reason to restrict yourself to just 2 cores.

It also comes down to how often you upgrade/replace your PC. Yes at the moment there are not many games out that will make good use of dual or quad core processors, but more are coming, and over the next couple of years more and more programs will be designed to make use of them. Since quad cores are widely available, i7 just starting, more and more programs will be designed to utilise multiple cores and not just limit themselves to dual.

HuusAsking

PS. Dang. 130W TDP for an i7? My 9450's only rated at 95W.

And yes even in lower settings and res,it performs the same.

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="Avenger1324"]

Since you can get a Q6600 for under £130 and then overclock it to 3,3GHz and beyond I can't see much reason to restrict yourself to just 2 cores.

It also comes down to how often you upgrade/replace your PC. Yes at the moment there are not many games out that will make good use of dual or quad core processors, but more are coming, and over the next couple of years more and more programs will be designed to make use of them. Since quad cores are widely available, i7 just starting, more and more programs will be designed to utilise multiple cores and not just limit themselves to dual.

Thinker_reborn

PS. Dang. 130W TDP for an i7? My 9450's only rated at 95W.

And yes even in lower settings and res,it performs the same.

Anyway its very simple TC...

if you are willing to overclock get a Q6600!

if you dont want to overclock then get a 3Ghz+ dual core!

[QUOTE="redneckdouglas"]It's either Dualcore or I7 quads. No point getting Core 2 Quad when games don't use 4 cores. And when they do, 8 threads > 4 cores.Daytona_178

But for i7 you will need a new mobo and DDR3 RAM which is currently a rip off!

http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=10009642

Cheapest right now. 

http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=10009642

Cheapest right now. 

redneckdouglas

thats not bad actually, for just comming out. give it 2-3 months,and ddr3 will be cheaper, the mobo's will be cheaper and so will the processors, thats how it always works, because in 2-3 months the rich enthusiasts will have gotten all that, showing their friends, which will get it, then that plus a little time.  will reduce the price for us non-rich to poor people to get our hands on it all.

not to mention amd releasing new and better am2+ processors, which will help the price of the icore7 reduce just a little bit more.