Good Dual Core V. Basic Quad Core

[BlackHood]

Ok, so I'm looking for a new CPU. I've already chosen a high end mother board but I now have two choices, either get a high end dual core, or a basic quad core. There is £1.24 difference in price, so it really is down to the merits of each. Specs:

Quad:
Q6600
4x 2.4Ghz
8MB Cache

Dual:
E8500
2x 3.16Ghz
6MB Cache

Anyone done much testing on either Quads or Duals? What about the future, will I need to go Quad to keep up in two years time, or will the Dual be powerfull enough to hold its own?

[Derelict]

All I know is I've heard quads are basically all talk; that they provide nothing your computer can't get from a good dual. There's all that power but nowhere for it to go. It's wasted money, in my opinion. Nothing you can't do with a good dual like that. I'm no expert though, so don't take my word for it.

[MistyTehMoose]

Yeah, quads are pretty much for bragging rights at the moment. Are you looking to overclock? If not, go the dual. Other than that you'll barely notice the difference at all.

[Mirrorman]

He could just buy the quad, if he wants to upgrade later, since the price difference is only a pound.

[BlackHood]

Overclocking isn't really the issue, but because I'm going to Uni in a few weeks, I don't want to upgrade any time soon as I will be very poor!

I guess the question really comes down to: will a high end dual core perform for a couple of years, or would it be better to buy the quad based on the fact in 2 years time more applications will utilize the second pair of cores?

[Mirrorman]

I would get the Quad core, so I wouldn't have to upgrade the processor
again, when more powerful equipment comes out in a few years.

[Beefynick]

I would get the Dual core. Right now quad core processor tend to operate like dual core processors. There are not many applications taking advantage of the quad core right now. That is not to say there will not be any in the future though. The dual core will last you for a while so you should not worry about upgrading for a few years at least.

You will not be disappointed if you get either processor, but personally I would get the dual core.

[B-rock]

I would get the Dual core. Right now quad core processor tend to operate like dual core processors. There are not many applications taking advantage of the quad core right now. That is not to say there will not be any in the future though. The dual core will last you for a while so you should not worry about upgrading for a few years at least.

You will not be disappointed if you get either processor, but personally I would get the dual core.

Dude, For like extra penny's you wouldn't get the quad? Yeah nothing can utilize all that, but why not be prepared? Overall quad is better in all specs (in most cases) If you did decide to overclock the quad would be there for you.

[Beefynick]

I would not get the quad because the dual core will run faster now.

It is kind of like the who 32 bit vs. 64 but platform debate. Why do most people get a 32 bit system, because more applications are made for it. Sure you can get a 64 bit platform and some applications work for it, but right now it is not in full blown use.

Obviously either processor is good and will provide adequate speeds, but personally I like the dual core as it will run faster now. I frankly do not see them being able to utilize a quad core processor fully for a few years yet at least.

[MistyTehMoose]

I would say get the dual. If you are only using it for uni work and gaming, there is no need for a quad.

You guys may want a beefy machine, but what he is using the computer for does not demand that much attention, ever. Just because it is better you shouldn't get it if you won't use it.

[Sarge51]

A high-end dual core is what I'd go for. I don't think there's that much need for Quad right now. My dual-cores running at 1.86 does me just fine. So a dual-core twice my speed should keep you good for a good while.

I'd also go with Intel CPUs as they've never failed me.

[Spastic]

I use a 3.20 GHZ dual core and I can play the most demanding games without a hiccup, you really don't need a quad core.

[Idioteque]

Could it be said, that since I got a quad core because the dual core I wanted was actually more expensive, I picked a worse deal?

[MistyTehMoose]

Could it be said, that since I got a quad core because the dual core I wanted was actually more expensive, I picked a worse deal?

Possibly, what are the specs on them? If it was cheaper fine, but usually with hardware, the cheaper option is cheaper for a reason.

What most of us are saying is there is no real reason to spend a lot of money on a quad core, because for gamers it won't be utilised, thus being a waste of money.

[Idioteque]

So far I'm pretty satisfied although they had to replace the first one we got due to a motherboard problem.

Intel Quad Core @ 2.66 ghz
6 gigs of RAM
NVIDIA Geforce9500 GS
Vista of course.

As far as I know, its a pretty solid computer. I can't find the dual core specs though :(

[MistyTehMoose]

That sounds pretty decent, I wouldn't worry too much if it was cheaper.

[Derelict]

How much did it end up costing? That's pretty good, even by today's standards.

[Sarge51]

Intel Quad Core @ 2.66 ghz

Christ, it's amazing how we have these chips that produce close to or more than 10GHz when not even that long ago there wasn't even too many 1GHz CPUs out there.

and if all goes well for Intel in the next couple of months we could be running 6-Core chips. Amazing.

But is there even NEED for this much power right now? I don't think so.

[Mirrorman]

Christ, it's amazing how we have these chips that produce close to or more than 10GHz when not even that long ago there wasn't even too many 1GHz CPUs out there.

and if all goes well for Intel in the next couple of months we could be running 6-Core chips. Amazing.

But is there even NEED for this much power right now? I don't think so.

They can do 12-core chips for all we care, when there isn't any equipment to go with it, it's not gonna be much of a use.

[opn4bzns]

Christ, it's amazing how we have these chips that produce close to or more than 10GHz when not even that long ago there wasn't even too many 1GHz CPUs out there.

This is a common misconception. You don't add up the clock speeds. A dual core at 3.2ghz isn't two 1.6s, and that quad you're talking about isn't anywhere near 10ghz.

OP, I would go for the Dual Core, simply because now far more stuff is optimized for them, rather than quads.

[Werty]

As with everyone else, just go with the dual. They'll still be good low-end CPUs if you really want to look at it that way in a few years.

[Idioteque]

How much did it end up costing? That's pretty good, even by today's standards.

Something like 1,200 dollars. The dual was like 1,400 or something.
EDIT: That may have been due to the fact that they were making room for new computers when they sold us the Quad. Hmm...

[Dejarr]

So far I'm pretty satisfied although they had to replace the first one we got due to a motherboard problem.

Intel Quad Core @ 2.66 ghz
6 gigs of RAM
NVIDIA Geforce9500 GS
Vista of course.

As far as I know, its a pretty solid computer. I can't find the dual core specs though :(
I resent that 'Vista of Course'. I built a brand new computer a couple months ago, and opted to get XP. It's not as though all of us feel the need to grab the new shiny windows while XP is still just as if not more functional.

[mohaas05]

I resent that 'Vista of Course'. I built a brand new computer a couple months ago, and opted to get XP. It's not as though all of us feel the need to grab the new shiny windows while XP is still just as if not more functional.

If you want maximum performance, you should opt for 95. That is the apex of Windows.

[Idioteque]

I resent that 'Vista of Course'. I built a brand new computer a couple months ago, and opted to get XP. It's not as though all of us feel the need to grab the new shiny windows while XP is still just as if not more functional.

Not that I wanted it, I just can't be assed to build a computer, and you cannot buy a new computer with XP anymore. I realize you can buy it separately, but I am so totally not spending 100 more dollars then I need too.

Vista isn't the greatest, but at least its workable, unlike my last computer which had ME.

[MistyTehMoose]

I resent that 'Vista of Course'. I built a brand new computer a couple months ago, and opted to get XP. It's not as though all of us feel the need to grab the new shiny windows while XP is still just as if not more functional.

Ugh, who cares. I use XP but I'm not going to bitch at people who don't.