I got them crazies.
30th December 2008
Just curious, but would a quad core at say....2.3 ghz beat a dual core at 3.0? I was never completely sure...
I LOVE TRUMP
9th September 2007
Well that would depend on more variables than just clock speed, but if it's specifically for gaming purposes, I'd go with a 3.0 ghz dual core.
"I'd shush her zephyr." ~ Zephyr.
18th November 2004
I'd go for the quad in pretty much any scenario, including games. Also, what specific processors are we talking about for dual-core (Pentium D, Core 2 Duo, Athlon x2, etc.) vs. quad-core (Core 2 Quad, i5, i7, Phenom II X4, etc.)?
What does the Fox say?
23rd November 2002
Your system specs may also need to be considered. And the type of games you will want to play. Newer games are just starting to take advantage of Quad-Core processors.
I'm with Nerd, that Dual Core sounds like a good option. However as Nerd and Zam mentioned, its more than just the clock speed. Each processor has its own optimizations, and a Core i5 2.3 would be a better choice than a Pentium D 3.0.
------ but to answer your question ----------
A Dual Core 3.0 will beat a 2.3 Quad Cores in most single threaded tasks, especially the older ones. However some newer Quad Core does have a lot of optimizations, that it properly utilized can allow the Quad to beat the Dual Core. Intel's Core line runs at about 1.6ghz most of the time anyway, and newer tech is designed to turn off more than two cores.
The Quad Core will beat most Dual Core chips, in heavily threaded applications. When fully utilized, the Quad Core's potential performance is nearly 7ghz. That is when fully utilized.
However with current generation software, mostly designed for Dual Cores (lightly threaded), and more for clock speed, a Dual Core 3.0 is usually the better chip.
Gettin' hardware chilly
16th June 2004
Depends on the dually, and quad. A Phenom II dually would stomp a first-gen phenom quad, as well as have the ability to unlock cores too.
Trust me, I'm a Doctor
25th November 2003
At this point i would always go with a quad if you can, even if its a slower clocked one. Quads these days come at, or can hit the same clock speeds as some of the best duallys with little to no problem so that's not really a issue. The biggest issue for most i think is the cost, but considering that you can get a high end Phenom II X4 955/965 for under $200, or a 2.8Ghz Phenom II X6 1055T for only $200, that's not really a issue for all but those on a extremely tight budget.
I know eveybody here points straight to the i5/i7 line when making suggestions, but for just a gaming system i still think a Phenom II X4/X6 would be a better idea for most on a budget, especially considering that a high resolutions the CPU makes little difference.
Which dual core / quad cores are you comparing?
A Phoenix from the ashes
18th April 2006
*The.Doctor;5330848Which dual core / quad cores are you comparing?
I think from his original post he's not actually thinking about buying anything, but just asking a general question.
What does the Fox say?
23rd November 2002
*The.Doctor;5330848Quads these days come at, or can hit the same clock speeds as some of the best duallys with little to no problem so that's not really a issue.
Good point. Especially given Intel's Turbo Boost (automatic overclocking feature). Example
As well as AMD's Turbo Core.
I tawt I taw a puddy tat...
30th December 2002
For a new rig, unless the budget is super tight, I would go with a quad for sure.
...but, as mentioned above, there's really no straight answer to your question. For instance, my situation:
My current dual core @ 4.2ghz does great for gaming and every other task, save one. I've been doing a fair amount of HD video encoding lately. This is the first task I've given my dual core that I found somewhat disappointing. It's a wee bit slow.
I soon plan to dump my E8400 (C2D) and pick up a fast quad. I'm only planning on doing the CPU, (not a new i5/i7 platform just yet) as I currently have 4 machines on socket775 boards running dual cores.
Then again, everything else on my rig still runs like butter, so the debate in my own head (about needing a quad) rages on. :lookaround:
1st January 2005
The question was too vague. It not only doesn't list models of either dual or quad CPU, it doesn't mention whether the buyer has experience with or plans to learn how to OC. AMD as mentioned DOES make a lot of unlocked duals and quads, but from what I've seen their BLCK doesn't scale nearly as well as Intel's, so they pretty much had to to compete. The AMD multipliers don't even seem to scale as well. I've seen benches of even their flagship 1090T X6, and though it IS THE best chip for bang for the buck multi tasking, video editing, etc, in games there are Intel quads that outperform it.
So I beg to differ on the AMDs being great for gaming on a budget. It depends what price range you're shopping in, what price you can get an Intel CPU for in your area, AND whether one can manage OCing. OCing an AMD chip isn't necessarily a given even for novices, because it's multiplier seems to only yield low OCs without requiring over volting, which further complicates things for a novice.
Intel has recently done something atypical for them in making the i7-875k, the unlocked version of the 870, but priced at only $342 vs $562. This appears to be to combat AMD's unlocked 1090T, which the 875k has been shown to beat in game benches. The 875k is also easier to OC, esp on MBs that support custom Turbo Boost settings it allows for. You can achieve a more than adequate OC just by raising the multiplier and Turbo Boost ratios a bit, with no over volting. That's a HUGE plus for novices to OCing on a chip that costs less than $35 more than a 1090T, and less than $50 more than a 930, and is clocked higher.
Question is though, can Intel compete on platform life? THE best thing AMD has going for it IMO is the life of their platforms. I mean my God the X6 chips will even work on AM2, and AM3 will no doubt be around a while knowing how AMD builds in compatibility. Conversely, Intel is already talking about LGA1155 and LGA2011. The most shocking of the two being 1155, coming shortly after 1156 debuted (Q4 2010) and with only ONE pin difference in socket size. It makes one considering an Intel platform think in terms of ultra low priced gear, like an i5 750, $120 P55 MB, and $100 kit of RAM, because compared to AMD, their platforms are practically disposable.
How long will 1156 be around, and will it ever get any Hex Core CPUs? It appears for those wanting long platform life, the 1366 and AM3 platforms with their hex support have huge advantages. Who knows, maybe 1155 will support hex, but thus far only dual and quad have been mentioned. Again, I see no reason for 1155, unless they're going to do something drastic like support more than 16 Pci-Ex lanes on it.
On the AMD vs Intel CPUs, to a large degree the difference in gaming is not going to be seen, as a 1090T can do 50 FPS or higher in most games with even a mediocre GPU. How it will continue to perform on demanding games to come, esp when DX11 is used more, may be another story. If I'm building a gaming rig I want game FPS to be first priority, even if it's well beyond what you can visually see, because it allows headroom for future games, use of Fraps, etc.
(EDITED) The i7-875k is already being sold at Tiger & Microcenter for only $300 (w/ MIR @ Tiger). MC is shipping these too! http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=6307058&Sku=I69-875K