Simple question about quad core/dual core

[360bhp]

Dual core 3ghz
Quad core 2.4ghz

Just wanted a few opinions.. Which one..

With the same HDD and XP64 as the OS, will have a faster boot time
Will be better for gaming
Would be more responsive while in general use (light use such as browsing, youtube in the background, msn etc)
Would be quicker at encoding/ripping videos

[kalniel]

Dual core 3ghz
Quad core 2.4ghz

Just wanted a few opinions.. Which one..

With the same HDD and XP64 as the OS, will have a faster boot time: Dual Core
Will be better for gaming: Dual Core
Would be more responsive while in general use (light use such as browsing, youtube in the background, msn etc): Dual core
Would be quicker at encoding/ripping videos: Quad core

[Will404]

How long are you planning on keeping the computer.

Quad is far more future proof.

Dual will be faster at some games, but as more multi-threaded ones come out, then quad will overtake it.

Boot time is probs about the same ish.

If you do heavy multi tasking then quad is more responsive, if not then the HDD is probs the limeting factorl

Ripping and encoding vids, depends on the program you use. If it can use all four cores, then quad is far quicker, if not then dual

[Zhaoman]

Kalniel has it spot on, dual core is faster because of the higher frequency, but the quad will go to 3Ghz without any trouble so it will be more futureproof.

[Splash]

I guess it depends on what you define as "futureproof". Aren't we due a new socket type soon? I'd guess that 775 will be out of date long before any application for home users makes the best use of quad core.

[vegas]

I've been thinking about this myself - is a good comprimise to buy the Dual Core now, and then upgrade to the Quad in about 2 years when it's actually being used to its fullest and will have dropped in price a fair bit?

[staffsMike]

As much as I like quad core as it helps me do exactly what I want to do the bulk of the time.. I still havn't bought one.

I've done builds with them for other people but personally for my needs I get by with dual core and will do for another 2 years or so.

I tend to use my laptop for surfing etc.. and my PC if there is any photo/video editing, encoding or gaming to do.. although I still game on the laptop if I can't be bothered to swich the desktop on

If you are a heavy multi-tasker and can think of geniune reasons to have more than 2 cores then get the quad you won't be dissapointed but if it's just gaming then get the dual, but not the E8400. Get the E7200 and overclock it if you really feel the need as 2.2 -2.4GHz on dual/quad is ample for gaming.

[Will404]

I've been thinking about this myself - is a good comprimise to buy the Dual Core now, and then upgrade to the Quad in about 2 years when it's actually being used to its fullest and will have dropped in price a fair bit?

Then you would have to get new mobo, and RAM too, if you wanted nelham..., or why not get the quad now

[vegas]

If I were to use this Scythe Mine CPU cooler (http://www.ebuyer.com/product/1274380, could I overclock the G0 stepping Q6600 to around 3GHZ to 3.2GHZ, and have it running stable?

[staffsMike]

If I were to use this Scythe Mine CPU cooler (http://www.ebuyer.com/product/1274380, could I overclock the G0 stepping Q6600 to around 3GHZ to 3.2GHZ, and have it running stable?

Yep no problem for that cooler

[Saracen]

I'm still a bit unconvinced about Quad-core to be honest, and the reason I've been putting off a system upgrade is exactly the questions 360bhp asked.

My take is this :-

• quad gives some future-proofing .... probably. But it's not cut-and-dried, and certainly not a simple as just waiting for loads of multi-threaded apps to arrive.
  
  Not all applications are suited to multi-threaded work. It has to be something where you can, effectively, break the workload down into non-interdependent chunks. Let me see if I can explain what I mean. If you've got a job to do, and you can break it down into four chunks (or some number of chunks divisible by four), does how chunk 2 is processed depend on the outcome of chunk 1? Or do chunks 3 and four depend on any earlier chunk? Because if they do, subsequent chunks can't start until the results for that required previous chunk are available. In that case, the processing is linear and doesn't lend itself to an application design that's multi-threaded.
  
  
• On the other hand, some type of work do lend itself to multi-threading, or multi-chunking, whatever you want to call it. For example, if you're working on a big graphics file and decide to print one, you don't want to wait several minutes (or even seconds) for the application to finish imaging that huge postscript file before you can carry on working. The work you're doing on the image, or another image, isn't dependent on the print job. That might be a bad example if the app hands the printing over to windows, but the principle remains valid.
  
  
• if you're breaking a single job down into two or more chunks, there can be very substantial problems in coordinating high speed cache, and there can be quite a lot of overhead in transferring data in and out of cache, and in keeping those chunks synchronised. Don't expect 4 cores to provide twice the processor grunt of 2 cores because, most of the time, it'll fall some way, and possibly quite a way, short of that.
  
  
• if you're going to be doing several things at once, like maybe burning a CD, running a big print job and playing a game, then a quad may well have significant benefits.
  
  
• if you're got one of the relatively rare apps that not only uses four cores, but does so effectively and efficiently (and effectiveness and efficiency in that utilisation are critical) then quad core is definitely the way to go
  
  
• given the programming complexities of quad (and two is bad enough) it remains to be seen how many apps, let alone games, will come along that will properly take advantage of four cores. Buying quad now means you're geared for it IF it happens .... but will it? And if it does, when? 6 months? Doubt it. 5 years .... do you care if it takes that long, because you'll have u[graded again by then.
  
  
• no platform has too much longevity built in. Something always changes. AGP gets replaced by PCI-E, IDE gets replaced by SATA, the processor socket gets upgraded, DDR gets replaced by DDR2 (or DDR2 by DDR3), USB comes out, or gets upgraded to USB2 .... and so on. Nothing lasts too long, and inevitably, you regularly end up more or less starting over.
  
  
• Nehalem is about to kick-start the process in that last point.
  
  
• it's all very well planning to upgrade when prices have dropped, but there is a floor to prices. At the £100 mark, Q6600 chips have a limit as to how much further they can drop, partly because there's a base level of cost, and partly because both Intel and AMD with simply EOL chips that drop too far. Always have, always will. In comparison to today's processor performance, how expensive should an Athlon XP1800 be? Quite so, and that's why they're no longer made.

I think it's a case of paying your money and taking your chance. Personally, the Q6600 appeals to me, but for a general purpose machine without specific apps that will use quads, I rather suspect an E8400/E8500 gives more bang for buck.