Depends on the application-assuming stock speeds, programs with one or two threads will run faster on the higher-clocked dual-core. However, apps that can run with three or four threads will run significantly faster on the quad-core despite the speed difference. I would suggest that you do like I did and get a Q6600. It's much easier to raise a CPU's clock speed than it is to install two extra cores, after all.
basically you need to sort otu what your priority is, if you want a smashing gaming machine then the Dual core wins that hands down but since you spend most of your time out of game and in other apps id suggest a quad where the multiasking will be quite nice..
People have been buying up the quad cores partially for a future hope that more games will be using 4 cores in the future, so if you're buying to use for the next 2-3 years it might have more 'potential'. That and it's incredibly easy to overclock.
[QUOTE="incubus_1_7"]just multiply the numbers!! that will tell you. Quad is for future. Although i have dualcoreyoyo462001
lol dont listen to this guy i dont know what your multiplying but youve got no idea what your on about. You mean to tell me that a 3 ghz dualcore is better than a quadcore 2.4 i dont think so. what i meant is multiplying2.4 x 4 is more than 3.0 x 2.
[QUOTE="yoyo462001"][QUOTE="incubus_1_7"]just multiply the numbers!! that will tell you. Quad is for future. Although i have dualcoreincubus_1_7
lol dont listen to this guy i dont know what your multiplying but youve got no idea what your on about. You mean to tell me that a 3 ghz dualcore is better than a quadcore 2.4 i dont think so. what i meant is multiplying2.4 x 4 is more than 3.0 x 2. lol go hang around in system wars or something your logic is stupid... if you build 4 towers each 50 m high does that mean youve built a 200m high tower ? i suggest you brush up on your PC knowlegde.
you guys are acting as if quad core spport is 10 years away. Its like a year away for most appsincubus_1_7
i doubt running a program for dual core hyperthreading is hard enough, 4 cores is much harder even look at crysis you hardly get any performance increase from quad core, it will be a while before normal every day apps are ready to multitask for 4 cores.
if you notice i said quad is for the future.The question wasnt is a 2.4 better than a 3.0. It was is a quad core 2.4 better than a dualcore 3.0. The answer is YES. Even if most apps run on singel core (right Now). WhenThe automobilefirst came out with 4 Wheel Drive cars, (Is 4WD better than 2WD?) No, 4WD is not supported on the roads only on offroad so no 2WD is Better. YEAH RIGHT!!!!!!
[QUOTE="incubus_1_7"]you guys are acting as if quad core spport is 10 years away. Its like a year away for most appsyoyo462001
i doubt running a program for dual core hyperthreading is hard enough, 4 cores is much harder even look at crysis you hardly get any performance increase from quad core, it will be a while before normal every day apps are ready to multitask for 4 cores.
thats becuase its one of the first apps to try and use the technology
[QUOTE="yoyo462001"][QUOTE="incubus_1_7"]you guys are acting as if quad core spport is 10 years away. Its like a year away for most appsincubus_1_7
i doubt running a program for dual core hyperthreading is hard enough, 4 cores is much harder even look at crysis you hardly get any performance increase from quad core, it will be a while before normal every day apps are ready to multitask for 4 cores.
thats becuase its one of the first apps to try and use the technology
no it is not, most if not all video and audio encoding programs can utilise all 4 cores, so its like crytek are the first because its been around basically since dual core, in most of them you can tell the difference between 2 vs 4 cores.
[QUOTE="yoyo462001"][QUOTE="incubus_1_7"]you guys are acting as if quad core spport is 10 years away. Its like a year away for most appsyoyo462001
i doubt running a program for dual core hyperthreading is hard enough, 4 cores is much harder even look at crysis you hardly get any performance increase from quad core, it will be a while before normal every day apps are ready to multitask for 4 cores.
thats becuase its one of the first apps to try and use the technology
no it is not, most if not all video and audio encoding programs can utilise all 4 cores, so its like crytek are the first because its been around basically since dual core, in most of them you can tell the difference between 2 vs 4 cores.
I understand that but you dont think they are not still new at this? Than why is playstation 3 developers having so many problems with the 7 cores?
if you notice i said quad is for the future.The question wasnt is a 2.4 better than a 3.0. It was is a quad core 2.4 better than a dualcore 3.0. The answer is YES. Even if most apps run on singel core (right Now). WhenThe automobilefirst came out with 4 Wheel Drive cars, (Is 4WD better than 2WD?) No, 4WD is not supported on the roads only on offroad so no 2WD is Better. YEAH RIGHT!!!!!!incubus_1_7
yea no doubt quad is the future but a quad core 2.4 does not outperform a 3.0 ghz dual core in any game. now this is where your logic just falls, if one core is being used then it become 3 vs 2.4, 3 is faster thats just common sense
[QUOTE="incubus_1_7"]if you notice i said quad is for the future.The question wasnt is a 2.4 better than a 3.0. It was is a quad core 2.4 better than a dualcore 3.0. The answer is YES. Even if most apps run on singel core (right Now). WhenThe automobilefirst came out with 4 Wheel Drive cars, (Is 4WD better than 2WD?) No, 4WD is not supported on the roads only on offroad so no 2WD is Better. YEAH RIGHT!!!!!!yoyo462001
yea no doubt quad is the future but a quad core 2.4 does not outperform a 3.0 ghz dual core in any game. now this is where your logic just falls, if one core is being used then it become 3 vs 2.4, 3 is faster thats just common sense
That is logical but this is where your logic fails, We are talking about the future not the present
because they havent had enough time with it!!incubus_1_7
yep youve proved my point if a major dev is just getting to terms with making things run a faster on 4 cores, its extremely unlucky that general apps will be using it within a year.
[QUOTE="yoyo462001"][QUOTE="incubus_1_7"]if you notice i said quad is for the future.The question wasnt is a 2.4 better than a 3.0. It was is a quad core 2.4 better than a dualcore 3.0. The answer is YES. Even if most apps run on singel core (right Now). WhenThe automobilefirst came out with 4 Wheel Drive cars, (Is 4WD better than 2WD?) No, 4WD is not supported on the roads only on offroad so no 2WD is Better. YEAH RIGHT!!!!!!incubus_1_7
yea no doubt quad is the future but a quad core 2.4 does not outperform a 3.0 ghz dual core in any game. now this is where your logic just falls, if one core is being used then it become 3 vs 2.4, 3 is faster thats just common sense
That is logical but this is where your logic fails, We are talking about the future not the present
lol can you not see your illogical argument. e.g. a Q6600 will not outperform an E6850 when only one core is being used whether its now or in 10 years. common think about does it make any sense?
[QUOTE="incubus_1_7"]because they havent had enough time with it!!yoyo462001
yep youve proved my point if a major dev is just getting to terms with making things run a faster on 4 cores, its extremely unlucky that general apps will be using it within a year.
Your right about the year i guess. But i do think that games will fast track that proccess for a year, but your right, general apps probably will not catchup for sometime. Dont mean to flipflop my position but when i said apps in a year i was really talking about games. But thats what these discussions are for. Debate.
[QUOTE="yoyo462001"][QUOTE="incubus_1_7"]because they havent had enough time with it!!incubus_1_7
yep youve proved my point if a major dev is just getting to terms with making things run a faster on 4 cores, its extremely unlucky that general apps will be using it within a year.
Your right about the year i guess. But i do think that games will fast track that proccess for a year, but your right, general apps probably will not catchup for sometime. Dont mean to flipflop my position but when i said apps in a year i was really talking about games. But thats what these discussions are for. Debate.
yea sorry if i seemed extremely hostile there, games will no doubt get better with 4 cores much sooner than general apps, but either way if you read my post i still suggested getting a quad core since overall it is better(incase you thought i was anti quad core) ...
How is a 4WD drive car not supported onthe roads? If anything I would rather have 4WD on the roads, better handling and traction. Nissan SKyline GT-R R34 has 4WD. I think I See what you were trying to say tho
How is a 4WD drive car not supported onthe roads? If anything I would rather have 4WD on the roads, better handling and traction. Nissan SKyline GT-R R34 has 4WD. I think I See what you were trying to say tho 9mmSpliff
LOL!!! I appreciate the fact that you thought about it. I said that because back then they didnt design 4wd for road cars like Subaru does. Back then it was monster trucktype trucks for offroad. At least you tried to figure it out lol. Im not quite sure how i came up with that analogy. not one of my best lol
[QUOTE="9mmSpliff"]How is a 4WD drive car not supported onthe roads? If anything I would rather have 4WD on the roads, better handling and traction. Nissan SKyline GT-R R34 has 4WD. I think I See what you were trying to say tho incubus_1_7
LOL!!! I appreciate the fact that you thought about it. I said that because back then they didnt design 4wd for road cars like Subaru does. Back then it was monster trucktype trucks for offroad. At least you tried to figure it out lol. Im not quite sure how i came up with that analogy. not one of my best lol
Yeah 4WD or AWD I would love to have in a car. Infact its something my next car is going to have. I know what youre saying tho, back in the day analogies. hahaha.
Ill link you to a one of the best analogies i have seen comparing products.
A 3.0 dual core would beat out a quad core a 2.4 ghz in many tasks, such as gaming. But when it comes to multitasking, certain encoding/decoding/compressing/unzipping, etc, quad core is better.
A 3.0 dual core would beat out a quad core a 2.4 ghz in many tasks, such as gaming. But when it comes to multitasking, certain encoding/decoding/compressing/unzipping, etc, quad core is better.hacker_xyzzy
I'd agree. It depends on what you plan to do. If you just want to sound cool and be able to say I've got a quad core then get a quad core.
Why all the fuss? You can get the Q6600 for the same price as the E6850(lower even) for one, the next is that the Q6600 can be OCed to 3ghz so easily that isn't a joke. Yes I know you can as well say the E6850 can go up to 4ghz as in its own way as well.
Thing is, its only a matter of time before apps and games start using more cores to better emphasize a CPU's performance. Its actually more efficient in a way as well.Use of programscan't fall backwards and certainly can't stay put, it'll only keep improving.
Log in to comment