I'm stuck with intel, so should I get a Core 2 Duo or the Quad?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for ElArab
ElArab

5754

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 ElArab
Member since 2007 • 5754 Posts

Cost isn't too big of a factor, but the cheapest quad I could find was on newegg (imagine that.)

I've heard all sorts of things and I guess since the quad core is pretty much better, naturally, I'd get it. Problem is, I've heard that instead of it having 4 cores, it's just 2 Core 2 Duo's stuck together, and because of that, those extra 2 cores are virtually useless because most things aren't able to "multi-thread". So they say to just wait for a new model, or if you absolutely need to get a new and GOOD processor, then a Core 2 Duo is your best bet, and just wait for the said "new model"

so should I just say "to hell with it" and buy the quad core, or should I play it safe and get the Core 2 Duo, either way I'll get pretty good performance.

Forgot to mention, basically everything in my computer is good except for the processor, I got an 8800 GTS and I'm "stepping up" to a GT soon, 2 gigs of DDR2, a big enough power supply to run everything in there (640 watts.), but my processor is some Pentium D dual core 2.8 that I managed to find for 30 bucks (got it through a friend.) and I need SOME kind of dual core at the time, but that was way back, so now it's upgrading time! so which is the better buy?:|

EDIT: Oh yeah, and if it makes any difference, I'm using XP (SP2).

Avatar image for Marfoo
Marfoo

6006

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 Marfoo
Member since 2004 • 6006 Posts
Get the quad, it'll last you longer in the long run. It's good for things like video encoding right now, and more and more programs will start using the threads.
Avatar image for michael098
michael098

3441

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 michael098
Member since 2006 • 3441 Posts
I would get the core 2 duo E6700, but since price isn't a factor get a quad core.
Avatar image for ElArab
ElArab

5754

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 ElArab
Member since 2007 • 5754 Posts
yeah quad core seems to be either 40 to 100 dollars more than the Core 2, which basically means that I'm stuck with my slightly better than crap processor for an extra month or so, I guess for computer longevity I should go for the quad core, but I just wanted to double check before I made the decision, thanks for the help guys :D.
Avatar image for hrah
hrah

1375

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#5 hrah
Member since 2003 • 1375 Posts
if money is no object, I say get an E6700 now, and next year when nehalem comes out, you can get one of those and the new mobo for it, for a total overhaul !!!
Avatar image for Wesker776
Wesker776

7004

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 Wesker776
Member since 2005 • 7004 Posts

What motherboard do you have?

If it's not equipped with at least a P965 chipset, you might not be able to run Core 2 Duo/Quad.

Avatar image for Spartan8907
Spartan8907

3731

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 Spartan8907
Member since 2006 • 3731 Posts
Might as well future-proof yourself and go with the quad core. Eventually, more and more programs are going to be multi-threaded to take full advantage of dual, and more so, quad core CPUs.
Avatar image for Link2legends
Link2legends

179

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 Link2legends
Member since 2005 • 179 Posts

I dont remember where i got this philosophy, but:

c2d = temporary, till better cpu comes out = 6 months to 2 years

Quad c2d = future proof = 4 to 7 years

i know i must be crazy