Quad Core Vs Dual Core

[handscombmp]

I'm wanting to upgrade my CPU as i feel that my current E4300 is holding me back. Now my problem is what to buy. As i'm upgrading a Dell pc i can only have a maxium FSB of 1066Mhz and it has to be 65nm. These are the CPU's i've come up with so far.

Q6600 @ 2.4Ghz 8mb cache £129.93 could possible go for the Q6700

E4700 @ 2.6Ghz 2mb cache £93.96

E2200 @ 2.4Ghz 1mb cache £58.62

My question what would be best for gaming. I'm aware the the cache can play and important role in it and 1mb for the cheap one seems a bit to little and i'm also aware that is the Celeron of Dual cores which put me off but the price is tempting. I know that a higherclock speed can play and important factor but being as the two main games i play are Crysis and FSX which i think both take example of Quad cores the Q6600 sounds good. Espically as i could always go for the higher clocked Q6700 which would but it on par with the E4700. What do you think i should go for.

Sorry if its a bit hard to read but i just can't seem to gather my thoughts together today.

[staffsMike]

Well since you can't overclock you will want the highest clock you can get really. That said anything about 2.2GHz is pretty much fine for gaming. The Q6600, which I would buy when on special offer for around £110 might be worth it.

Money wise it doesn't seem worth spending £95 on a dual which isn't that fantastic, when the Q6600 can be had for as little as £110.

If you can find anyone selling an E6600 that would be good to.

[moogle]

If you're going for a Q6700 see if the E8xxx cpu's are in your range. The dual cores are much much better for gaming. The E2180 might be the celeron of dual cores but it's still good ;D

Like this http://www.scan.co.uk/Product.aspx?WebProductId=860610 is the best dual core you can get but it costs more than the Q6700 but this one http://www.scan.co.uk/Product.aspx?WebProductId=736335 is a teeny bit more than the Q6600 and it's only a 0.17ghz slower than the top so it'll do you well.

The duals are better for gaming (only if clocked higher) than the quads but the quads are the best all rounders and will last longer as software will start using all those cores.

[crazyfool]

For gaming atm dual core is better because very few if any games use more than 2 cores... however like mike said anything over about 2.2 is fine for gaming and if you get a quad core you'll be set for when games finally start using 4 cores... I have a q6600 with an 8800gt and i can play cod4 maxed out easily

[handscombmp]

If you can find anyone selling an E6600 that would be good to.

Thanks but all of the E6600's i can find are the same price as a quad so it look like that my be better.

Now the thing is, is the Q6700 worth the money over the Q6600 (£25)

Moogle i looked at the 8 series but they're 45nm cpus when i need a 65nm one

[moogle]

Moogle i looked at the 8 series but they're 45nm cpus when i need a 65nm one

Erf.. oversight on my part there. I'm guessing mobo doesn't support the 45nm eh? Well it seems the Quad would be best I think.

You could get a http://www.scan.co.uk/Product.aspx?WebProductId=632056 but its same as a Q6600 but I'm not sure if it will give you that much more performance in games.

[staffsMike]

It is a shame about not supporting 45nm because at £55 the E5200 would be perfect. Shame

£25 for 260 odd MHz.. It won't show a visable improvement in games imo. Honestly after 2.4Ghz there is no difference. I run my E6600 stock at the moment for that very reason.

[shadowmaster]

http://www.guru3d.com/article/cpu-sc...e-processors/1

[Yosh]

Interesting read on guru3d thanks for the link

[cpemma]

I'm wanting to upgrade my CPU as i feel that my current E4300 is holding me back. Now my problem is what to buy. As i'm upgrading a Dell pc i can only have a maxium FSB of 1066Mhz and it has to be 65nm.

Are you able to overclock that E4300? 1066MHz would up it to 2.4GHz and should be very doable on a "normal" motherboard/bios, but I don't know Dells.

[staffsMike]

Are you able to overclock that E4300? 1066MHz would up it to 2.4GHz and should be very doable on a "normal" motherboard/bios, but I don't know Dells.

Very restricted bios, no overclocking unless it's an XPS, and the upper end one at that. You may however, be able to pin mod it to 1066MHz.

[looney]

Q6600 should be ur best.

[Blitzen]

If you're going for a Q6700 see if the E8xxx cpu's are in your range. The dual cores are much much better for gaming. The E2180 might be the celeron of dual cores but it's still good ;D

Like this http://www.scan.co.uk/Product.aspx?WebProductId=860610 is the best dual core you can get but it costs more than the Q6700 but this one http://www.scan.co.uk/Product.aspx?WebProductId=736335 is a teeny bit more than the Q6600 and it's only a 0.17ghz slower than the top so it'll do you well.

The duals are better for gaming (only if clocked higher) than the quads but the quads are the best all rounders and will last longer as software will start using all those cores.

Why do people insist on saying that?
The Dual Cores, although offering a few percent extra in games are not MUCH better at all. THe improvement, would not be noticed to 99% of people and certainly wouldnt be noticed unless running benchmark software or FRAPS.

I can play games with a Quad every bit as smoothly as someone can play theirs with a E*** series CPU.
I just so so misleading when a statement like that is given.

Couple that with the fact that the QUAD core does everything else better.

[Webby]

Well just looking at the Guru 3D results I would say that at any resolution people are likely to be playing games the really is not much in it certainly not enough to worry about (a couple of frames a second moving from a Q6600 to a E8400) this basically shows its your graphics card that is important not your CPU.

So if all your going to use your PC for is gaming then get a cheap duel core clocked at 2.2+GHz if you are going to be using it for anything like video encoding then look to the quads. And if gaming then you will be better served (most likely) improving your graphics card rather than your CPU (especially if your CPU is already duel core and running above 2.2GHz).

[shaithis]

Sell the Dell and build yourself a real computer which is properly upgradable

[DanceswithUnix]

Why do people insist on saying that?
The Dual Cores, although offering a few percent extra in games are not MUCH better at all. THe improvement, would not be noticed to 99% of people and certainly wouldnt be noticed unless running benchmark software or FRAPS.

I can play games with a Quad every bit as smoothly as someone can play theirs with a E*** series CPU.
I just so so misleading when a statement like that is given.

Couple that with the fact that the QUAD core does everything else better.

Sadly computer journos insist on drawing graphs showing benchmark differences using stupid scales. eg, if quad cpu gives 92 benchies and dual core gives 94 benchies then lets start the scale at 90 to magnify the difference. Now, to the technically illiterate, it looks like the dual core is twice as fast as the quad as the rectangle is twice as high.

Can't blame the journos I suppose, if they did their graphs starting on the zero axis then people would realise that what they are writing about doesn't really alter performance much, stop reading and the journo is out of a job

So I would say options are:

1/ Buy a quad.
2/ Stick with what you have.