Dual or Quad Core

[monkeybutler]

Im looking at upgrading my CPU and am looking at either the E8400 or Q8200 but can't decide which to get. Both are around the same price and will be used for gaming/multi-tasking/multimedia.
Any suggestions?

[Cov]

Im looking at upgrading my CPU ...

Oh man, that is really hard.

I have the E8400 (since 03/08) and couldn't be any happier.
It is the fastest & coolest running CPU I ever had, despite speedstep (automatically lowering of the frequency) kicking in most of the time.

Temperatures, according to everest, are 35 to 45 degrees when doing basic stuff (cheap CPU cooler).
The CPU usage indicates that all application make good use of both cores, when needed.

However, I am thinking of getting a quad myself now. The Q9550.
As I'm planning to build a Mini ITX PC, I'm going to get a Yorkfield to replace the Wolfdale which will be re-employed in the new system.

Coming back to your question .... what is more important to you ?

Energy efficiency ? Quite running CPU cooler ? Power when needed ? Do you do encoding stuff, etc ?

If I had to decide between dual and quad, I would go rather for a quad with 12 MB cache.



I remember the discussions where quads were not using all cores but that has changed by now and more applications / games are optimized for multicore.

[scaryjim]

Any suggestions?

Google is your friend Also, search hexus for CPU reviews which will give you a good idea of what kinds of tasks each is suited to.

Generally, if you're mostly going to be gaming and *watching* media the higher clock speeds of a dual-core will probably be of benefit, whereas if you mostly *heavy* multitask or encode / recode media you'll get most benefit from a quad.

[Blitzen]

Google is your friend Also, search hexus for CPU reviews which will give you a good idea of what kinds of tasks each is suited to.

Generally, if you're mostly going to be gaming and *watching* media the higher clock speeds of a dual-core will probably be of benefit, whereas if you mostly *heavy* multitask or encode / recode media you'll get most benefit from a quad.

True.
Just remember though, that a Quad Core will also cope with any game you throw at it with perfect ease.

[Georgy291]

Quod, any day in this modern world

dual core was just a waste of money right from the start as i found out with my build i got now

[scaryjim]

Quod, any day in this modern world

dual core was just a waste of money right from the start as i found out with my build i got now

I think that's unfair on dual-core CPUs: I've had several that have coped marvellously with the workload I put them under. But I don't think I'd be convinced to pay anything over £100 for one, since at that point you can have a 3 core Phenom II Dual core will surely become the budget default, replacing our old Semprons and Celerons...

On the other hand, one core of a Q8200 should be able to drive most of today's games without issue, leaving the other 3 spare for... oh, I don't know, folding@home maybe?

[Pob255]

NO!

E8400 or Q8200

Asus p5w DH = 975 chipset = 65mn 1066mhz core2 chips only
So neather the e8400 or q8200 will work on that motherboard.
Which means your limited to the e6xxx or q6xxx series

A 2nd hand e6600 will get you a bit of extra performance (probable better overclocking as well) or a q6600 for quad core.
Short of replacing the motherboard (and probable windows reinstall) that's the best you can get.

[shadowmaster]

You can overclock an E8400 to 4ghz, and I imagine you could also bump that Q8200 to at least 3ghz which would also handle any game and plus its quad core.

If the price is similar then I'd go with the quad, they'll handle all games quite easily and plus you get two extra cores which really do come in handy when you multi task, media encoding, etc.

EDIT: POB is correct, none of the 45nm will work. However a quick check on the asus website has shows the following high end cpu's will work (with a potential bios update)

Core 2 Duo E6750 (2.66GHz,1333FSB,L2:4MB,rev.G0)
Core 2 Duo E6850 (3.00GHz,1333FSB,L2:4MB,rev.G0)
Core 2 Extreme QX6700(revB3,2.66GHz,1066FSB,L2:2X4MB)
Core 2 Extreme QX6800 (rev.G0,2.93GHz,1066FSB,L2:2X4MB,4 cores)
Core 2 Extreme QX6850(revG0,3.00GHz,1333FSB,L2:2X4MB)
Core 2 Extreme QX9650 (rev.C1,3.00GHz,1333FSB,L2:2X6MB,4 cores)
Core 2 Extreme X6800(2.93GHz,1066FSB,L2:4MB,revB2)
Core 2 Quad Q6400 (2.13GHz,1066FSB,L2:2X4MB,rev.B3,4 cores)
Core 2 Quad Q6600 (2.40GHz,1066FSB,L2:2X4MB,rev.B3,4 cores)
Core 2 Quad Q6600 (2.40GHz,1066FSB,L2:2X4MB,rev.G0,4 cores)
Core 2 Quad Q6700 (2.66GHz,1066FSB,L2:2X4MB,rev.G0,4 cores)

You could get a Q6600 for £90/£100 or so and overclock it to 3ghz. That would do you nicely.

[Cov]

Asus P5W DH = 975 chipset = 65mn 1066mhz core2 chips only
So neither the E8400 or Q8200 will work on that motherboard.

Wow, I didn't think of checking his motherboard.
I'm quite impressed here Pob255 !!!

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I was in the same situation too!! I had an E4500 at 2.95ghz and decided to replace it for a secondhand Q6600 which cost me under £80. My motherboard is a 975X too.

I got it up to 3ghz now. It is great upgrade! The single threaded performance increased also as the total amount of cache per core also doubled to 2mb. You E6300 also only has 2mb of cache for both cores!!

The only disadvantage of the Q6600 is increased power consumption and the fact it runs hotter as a result.

[monkeybutler]

I thought i had already looked at that. Previously when looking at asus website it said it could use 45nm cpus with a bios update. now i look and it can't. Must have been my mistake. thanks for all the replies though at least stopped me from making an expensive mistake.

[Pob255]

EDIT: POB is correct, none of the 45nm will work. However a quick check on the asus website has shows the following high end cpu's will work (with a potential bios update)

Core 2 Duo E6750 (2.66GHz,1333FSB,L2:4MB,rev.G0)
Core 2 Duo E6850 (3.00GHz,1333FSB,L2:4MB,rev.G0)
Core 2 Extreme QX6700(revB3,2.66GHz,1066FSB,L2:2X4MB)
Core 2 Extreme QX6800 (rev.G0,2.93GHz,1066FSB,L2:2X4MB,4 cores)
Core 2 Extreme QX6850(revG0,3.00GHz,1333FSB,L2:2X4MB)
Core 2 Extreme QX9650 (rev.C1,3.00GHz,1333FSB,L2:2X6MB,4 cores)
Core 2 Extreme X6800(2.93GHz,1066FSB,L2:4MB,revB2)
Core 2 Quad Q6400 (2.13GHz,1066FSB,L2:2X4MB,rev.B3,4 cores)
Core 2 Quad Q6600 (2.40GHz,1066FSB,L2:2X4MB,rev.B3,4 cores)
Core 2 Quad Q6600 (2.40GHz,1066FSB,L2:2X4MB,rev.G0,4 cores)
Core 2 Quad Q6700 (2.66GHz,1066FSB,L2:2X4MB,rev.G0,4 cores)

You could get a Q6600 for £90/£100 or so and overclock it to 3ghz. That would do you nicely.

Thanks for that, I wasn't sure about the 1333fsb e6xxx series as the asus website just kept giveing me broken links.

I'm not sure the limits of the 975 chipset for fsb, just checked fleabay someones got an e6750 for £70+5 on "buy it now" if you don't mind fealbay and bidding you should be able to get a e6750 or e6600 £50 or less.
q6600 seem to be going for around £80-100 with stupidly high "buy it now"s (i.e. shop prices or higher )

EDIT: it's called look and read first, sugest after.
Still bugs me when people keep telling someone with a 17" or 19" monitor to buy a 4870 or gtx260

[Georgy291]

i dont think dual cores are worth anymore, if i can find quod cores phenoms for around £130, and cheapest dual cores are about £50?

with modern applications its not really the cpu that matters, since most off the modern games chuck all the load on to the GPU and dont stress cpu as much

look at my spec and you will see how old my cpu is and im still able to play crysis at 1680 by 1050 with everything on high

[Pob255]

i dont think dual cores are worth anymore, if i can find quod cores phenoms for around £130, and cheapest dual cores are about £50?

with modern applications its not really the cpu that matters, since most off the modern games chuck all the load on to the GPU and dont stress cpu as much

look at my spec and you will see how old my cpu is and im still able to play crysis at 1680 by 1050 with everything on high

Unfortunately you're makeing some very good arguments for dual cores there not against them.
I'd not pay £100+ for a dual core but at the same time your system (as does mine) shows how much a half decent dual core can cope with currently.

A good dual core (with compatible motherboard) for around £60-75 is a good buy as it will cope with the current crop of games when teamed with a decent graphics card, paying twice as much for a quad core which will see little benefit on most games is questionable.

Granted we should see more games coming out which will support quad cores but how long will it be is the big question?

When the first dx10 cards came out they were just not worth it as there were so few dx10 games (and there still are very few dx10 games) but most of the cards were not better than dx9 cards (execpt for the top end, 8800gts 320mb or HD2900 or better) now however we are getting some very good dx10 cards however still very few dx10 games.

It does depend a lot on what you do with your pc but even now web browseing is starting to get far more resource hungery and at the low end a half decent dual core is a good buy.
At work we stil have a load of 2.4-3ghz celerons and even though they are just used for office apps and web browseing the difference between them and our newer e2200's is very noticeable.

A Single core to dual core cpu is still good upgrade

spelling, gramma & rant buy red wine

[Hyperviper34]

It’s all dependant on money at the end of the day, a CPU under £150 and you’re a hardcore gamer then there is only on and that’s the high-frequency dual-core E8400 but if you run a variety of games and applications then the lower -frequency quad-core Q6600 is the better buy. Anyway as you’re out of the running for a Wolfdale it's a Q6600 Go, all the way in my opinion .....

[monkeybutler]

Again, thanks for all the advice just ordered the Q6600.