Dual vs Quad cores

[Enkidu Warrior]

I'm in the market for a new desktop, and I've been presented with the choice between a 2.4GHz Quad core or a 3GHz Dual core for the same price. What are the advantages and disadvantages of each? I'm trying to get a system that will play games without breaking into a sweat, but gaming will not be the primary use. I guess I'm looking for more of a multimedia setup. What do you think?

 

[Speedo]

If you have to ask the question, then the odds of you having any real need for a quad are pretty small.

 

[GenMarshall]

I am always a sucker for faster speeds . Not that I am a gamer, but I'd like to see my computer to be useful before it becomes technically obsolete (The point where newer software become bloatware and refuses to run)

 

[Zelig]

If you're doing multimedia, definately quad-core. Most games are GPU limited anyway, I'm running a S939 setup with an 8800 GTS G92, and I still manage to GPU limit this in new games.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

Most likely you will not need quad core unless, as said by Zelig, you do multimedia. If you do any kind of 3D modeling, a quad core will help greatly. Otherwise, if you're gonna upgrade anyways in 2 years or so, a dual-core, as long as its fast, will suffice.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

I get the impression that everyone is assuming that a quad core is an additional expense that I possibly could do without. The above choices cost the same. It's just that the quad cores are individually not as fast. It's just a matter of choosing between them.

I have been led to believe that the faster dual cores would potentially be better at running games, while the quad cores would be better at multimedia applications. But that being said Zelig's comment rings very true to me. I'm getting a system with a 512MB 8800 GT, so I was thinking that that would handle the gaming and that the quad cores would be more versatile when handling other tasks. Am I wrong?

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

1) why hasn't anyone built a quadcore where each core is as fast as a dualcore core? Would it be more difficult?

2) If you are going to run a lot of heavy software at the same time then quad otherwise dual.

 

[Zelig]

1) why hasn't anyone built a quadcore where each core is as fast as a dualcore core? Would it be more difficult?

They're available, they're just expensive. If you have lots of money, you can get a skulltrail platform with 8x3.2 GHz cores.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

1) why hasn't anyone built a quadcore where each core is as fast as a dualcore core? Would it be more difficult?

Power consumption and heat.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

I'm still undecided. I know that I would be unlikely to exploit the quad core at present, it would basically amount to some small boost when I'm doing lots of things at once and some pretty far off future proofing. But then the advantages of the faster dual core aren't exactly overwhelming, since my graphics card will be taking most of the heat and I'm not a power gamer anyway.

Most of the articles I've read and indeed most of the comments here focus on the duo vs quad issue as one of cost effectiveness, but that's not really want I need to know. I was hoping to find out what the real noticable effects would be when pitting a faster dual core processor up against a slower quad core.

On the one hand I figure that the advantages of the quad core will be largely lost on me and that I should therefore go with the duo, but on the other hand I'm thinking that the extra 0.6 GHz is also largely irrelevant and that I might as well go with the small degree of future proofing offered by the quad.

Maybe I should just flip a coin.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

Intel is gonna be releasing a new platform possibly beginning of next year, and its also likely it wont be compatible. So if you dont need the Quad-core now, hold off till then.

 

[GoodGame]

I'd only get a quad-core for some serious office work, like running a business in real-time, or maybe if I was a computer programmer /artist type.

 

[mangxema]

I'm in the market for a new desktop, and I've been presented with the choice between a 2.4GHz Quad core or a 3GHz Dual core for the same price. What are the advantages and disadvantages of each? I'm trying to get a system that will play games without breaking into a sweat, but gaming will not be the primary use. I guess I'm looking for more of a multimedia setup. What do you think?

Unless you're going to be doing heavy video editing or rendering, I don't think the quad is going to buy you a whole lot. I went through this over Christmas and went for the dual-core, though given my options I think I saved a little money. I also got the 8800 and I can tell you the combination is pretty ridiculous.

I have been led to believe that the faster dual cores would potentially be better at running games, while the quad cores would be better at multimedia applications. But that being said Zelig's comment rings very true to me. I'm getting a system with a 512MB 8800 GT, so I was thinking that that would handle the gaming and that the quad cores would be more versatile when handling other tasks. Am I wrong?

Well, the way quad-core processors are setup nowadays, the quad is basically a dual under worst case conditions. Basically, they share stuff. Intel did a similar thing with their first round of dual-cores back in the day. AMD's quad is supposed to be the first with four real, independent processors, but last time I checked they were having some issues.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

The issues you speak of is the TLB ( or is it TLD, i forget) bug. AMD had to disable L3 cache and reduce clock speed to avoid it until they fix it in the next stepping. In effect, they cut off a limb from the processor, severely handicapping it.

 

[Speedo]

The issues you speak of is the TLB ( or is it TLD, i forget) bug. AMD had to disable L3 cache and reduce clock speed to avoid it until they fix it in the next stepping. In effect, they cut off a limb from the processor, severely handicapping it.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3260

 

[Zelig]

The issues you speak of is the TLB ( or is it TLD, i forget) bug. AMD had to disable L3 cache and reduce clock speed to avoid it until they fix it in the next stepping. In effect, they cut off a limb from the processor, severely handicapping it.

The bug is worse than it sounds, 99%+ of users will never experience it even with the BIOS fix disabled.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

Problem is that unless you got the Phenom when it was released, you're most likely gonna get one that doesnt allow you to turn off the fix.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong though.

 

[Zelig]

Problem is that unless you got the Phenom when it was released, you're most likely gonna get one that doesnt allow you to turn off the fix.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong though.

The fix is executed from the BIOS, no relation to the processor.

If you're running a B2 stepping Phenom/Opteron, and an up to date BIOS, you can enable/disable the fix as you choose. If you're running a B3 stepping CPU, no fix is needed.

I'm not aware of any situations where you'd be stuck running at reduced performance. (Other than the obvious situations where you're running virtualization software that actually needs the fix in order to function.)

FWIW, the fix doesn't disable cache or reduce clockspeed, it's more technical than that, the link Speedo posted explains what the TLB fix does.

 

[Imrahil91]

I recently had to take the same decision, and I chose quad core. I heard that more games and programs would take use of quad core, so I thought it would be a good investment. I don't know very much about it, but this seems to work fine. Nothing I've used require more than 2.4GHz so the CPU isn't limiting any games, and I can easily overclock it to more than 3GHz if something needs that in the future, that's also why I bought a better CPU cooler.

 

[azzaman333]

Quadcore isn't worth paying more for at the current time unless, as has been said, you're doing multimedia.