Quad Core or Dual Core

[Pope]

My current pc is 6 or 7 years old, and it's starting to show to say the least. So it's time for an upgrade.

 

One of the things I'm wondering is whether I should get a dual core or a quad core. Sure, quad core sounds very hip, but as I understand there's no real use to them unless you're working with programs specifically written with these kind of processors in mind.

 

So can anyone give me the lowdown please. Basically, just tell me which to get, cause I'm a tech noob.

 

 

 

Edit: I was looking on the Dell site (current pc is Dell and I have been quite content with it, contrarily to some other unnamed brands, so I decided to stick with Dell), and I saw these options:

 

Intel

Edited August 21, 2008 by Pope

[samm]

Firstly, while the 120$ premium for 100MHz is hefty, you get a newer generation chip that sucks less current. Still, it won't be nowhere near as much faster as the price suggests.

 

Secondly, what do you do whith your PC? Because if it's only surfing and office or programming work, watching movies, listening to music etc., there's definitely no need for a quad core. If you're compiling a lot, converting/editing movies, rendering or something like that, the quad core will bring noticable improvements. Games are getting slightly better on this front, but even if the future brings a lot more games that can do something with four processors, who knows if 2.4 GHz will suffice by then? Well, I'm sure someone can be more concrete than I am, citing numbers or something. That would be helpful.

Edited August 21, 2008 by samm

[Gorth]

No numbers, just generally what Samm said. It depends on what you need it for. Office/Gaming use and a dual core should do nicely.

 

I am slightly biased towards quad cores, but that is because I use software that likes cores. The more the merrier. My Baldurs Gate 2 doesn't run any faster though

[mkreku]

I have so far not noticed any improvement in ANY application (neither games nor serious ones) from my four cores. In fact, I was able to overclock my two core version of the same processor HIGHER than this four core version, so in reality I actually lost performance! I don't know why I fell for the MORE CORES hype, but it isn't worth it right now. Trust me.

[Pope]

So dual core it is. Thanks for the advice.

 

I currently use my pc for the internet only. I haven't played pc games in years, but with my next rig I'd like to try some out again, so it'd be nice if the hardware remains up-to-date for a while.

[hugh750]

So dual core it is. Thanks for the advice.

 

I currently use my pc for the internet only. I haven't played pc games in years, but with my next rig I'd like to try some out again, so it'd be nice if the hardware remains up-to-date for a while.

Yes a duo core cpu will do just fine for pc gaming, i have a duo core 2 intel e6550 and it play games just fine.

[Pope]

Other question: is the E8500 (3,16 GHz) worth dashing out an extra €140 compared to the E8400 (3,00 GHz)? I'm guessing not.

 

 

 

The Dell Inspiron 530s looks pretty interesting.

 

Intel

Edited August 22, 2008 by Pope

[Kaftan Barlast]

The Core 2 series are VERY overcklocking-frindly so I wouldnt shell out on a few extra Hz that you can get by yourself for free. Better spend those money on a good CPU cooler.

 

 

 

And since I do alot of heavy multithreadd crunching crunching; rendering and simulation, Id take as many cores as I could get but thats just me. I was even thinking about getting a 2xCPU motherboard so I could run dual quadcores.

[mkreku]

256 MB ATI

[taks]

I have so far not noticed any improvement in ANY application (neither games nor serious ones) from my four cores. In fact, I was able to overclock my two core version of the same processor HIGHER than this four core version, so in reality I actually lost performance! I don't know why I fell for the MORE CORES hype, but it isn't worth it right now. Trust me.

generally speaking, software has to be written with a-priori intent to take advantage of multiple cores (even dual), at least for any noticeable change in performance. more often than not, the biggest benefit of multiple cores is the ability to run multiple programs since each will get farmed out to a separate processor. some games are written for multiple cores, but certainly none of the games pre-dual-core releases, e.g., baldur's gate 2, were written with multiple cores in mind.

 

taks

[Bokishi]

I have so far not noticed any improvement in ANY application (neither games nor serious ones) from my four cores. In fact, I was able to overclock my two core version of the same processor HIGHER than this four core version, so in reality I actually lost performance! I don't know why I fell for the MORE CORES hype, but it isn't worth it right now. Trust me.

 

If you have four cores, you can run more programs at once. Try that

[Pope]

256 MB ATI

[mkreku]

I'd recommend the Geforce 9800GTX+ 512MB if you like Nvidia or the Radeon HD 4850 512MB if you like ATI. They are both excellent value for your money, although none of them are really "cheap". ATI's card is slightly less costly than the Nvidia part and they perform about equally.

[Lare Kikkeli]

256 MB ATI

Edited August 23, 2008 by Lare Kikkeli

[Pope]

256 MB ATI

[samm]

Both are reference designs*, so I'd take the cheaper one. The datasheet page says that it has a TV out as well, but look for some reviews to see whether that's true. (I think it is judging from the picture: that black round thing between the DVI exits).

 

*the Asus one has Alone in the dark bundled, probably that's why the price is higher.

Edited August 23, 2008 by samm

[Gorgon]

I would have gotten a HD4870 but it cost almost twice as much as my 4580 at the time due to shortages. It's about 20-25% faster, give or take. I still haven't played anything the single 4850 could'nt handle at high, or very high settings.

Edited August 23, 2008 by Gorgon

[Lare Kikkeli]

I can get at least 50 FPS from COD4, NWN2 and TF2 with everything maxed out on 1440x900 no matter how much stuff is happening on screen.

[hugh750]

Both are reference designs*, so I'd take the cheaper one. The datasheet page says that it has a TV out as well, but look for some reviews to see whether that's true. (I think it is judging from the picture: that black round thing between the DVI exits).

 

*the Asus one has Alone in the dark bundled, probably that's why the price is higher.

Most radeon cards have a tv out, so you ok if you want a tv out option.

[Pope]

Is the 4870 still the best choice? Still haven't purchased a new gpu, but now that I've finally installed NWN2+MotB it's obvious how flawed my current card is.

 

I was thinking of getting this one.

Edited October 12, 2008 by Pope

[mkreku]

Is the 4870 still the best choice? Still haven't purchased a new gpu, but now that I've finally installed NWN2+MotB it's obvious how flawed my current card is.

 

I was thinking of getting this one.

The Radeon HD 4870 1GB: The Card to Get

 

Good choice.

[Pope]

I found the same card on another site for