duo vs quad

wim · Post by **wim** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 8:57 pm

what is a better purchase?
-Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 (3.0Ghz/Conroe/4MB/1333FSB/EMT64/XD/Dual Core)
-Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 (2.40Ghz/Kentsfield/4MBx2/1066FSB/EMT64/XD/Quad Core)

they are the same price.. (349 AUD here)

when running some single threaded app, will the duo generally be (significantly) faster than the quad?

tehfire · Post by **tehfire** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 10:00 pm

When running single-threaded apps, the E6850 will be faster.

When overclocking, the E6850 will generally (almost always) o/c further than the Q6600, which would make it still faster in single-threaded apps.

As for the "significantly faster" claim, depends on how CPU intensive your program is. The high-end Core 2's really do eat anybody's lunch, so the difference in speed is debatable. The 6850 will be faster, however.

Keep in mind, however, that if you run many single-threaded apps, the Q6600 may have the advantage.

wim · Post by **wim** » Fri Nov 09, 2007 2:19 am

thanks for your advice. what do you mean by the 'high-end' core 2s? i remember the E6600 seemed to be the one that everyone wanted and they were going like hotcakes, but scorptec don't seem to even have them for sale i wonder why

will either of these be easier to cool than the other?

sailorman · Post by **sailorman** » Fri Nov 09, 2007 3:07 am

hi
i was also wondering what is better to get... Core2Duo E6850 or Quad Core Q6600.... Most people say that core2duo is faster that Q6600 but im not so sure... u see, in the first case u have 2 cores running slightly faster than the 4 cores of quad core CPU... but when exactly do u need the maximum power of the CPU running any program? i guess almost never.
i had till now a P4 478 3,0GHZ with hyperthreading and i have never seen this running on its 100%
After all i think that is better to have 4 cores running, theoritically, at lower frequences than to have 2 cores. Besides when do u need to run 2 or 3 really heavy applications at the same time??

Otherwise we all have to wait for the Q6850 CPU....!11111111

austinbike · Post by **austinbike** » Fri Nov 09, 2007 4:19 am

The key is that dual core is "generally" better if:

you are running single threaded apps
you run apps in sequential manner (one after another, not all at once)
you are not running many heavy background apps

Quad-core procs are "generally" better if

you are running multi-threaded apps
you are running several programs at once - note, this is actually running them vs. just having the apps opened up at the same time
you are running multiple background apps/services

The reason that dual core are generally better than quad is that dual core generally have higher clock speeds, or have a lower price for the same clock speed. All bets are off if you can get a quad at the same speed for the same price or less than a dual.

you also have to look at power. Duals generally draw less power than quads, but in some cases they can draw the same (barcelona can usually draw less power than amd dual cores in most workloads).

frank2003 · Post by **frank2003** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 5:27 am

First all, most OS operations and simple web browsing, editing documents, etc don't warrant a multi-core system.

For running applications, you will get the most benefit out of a multi-core system if you are running multiple CPU-intensive, single threaded tasks that match the number of processing units, or a single CPU-intenstive multi-threaded task that can take advantage of all the processing units.

Unless you already have a multi-core system, you cannot tell if an application is multi-threaded (to be more specific, if it has multiple worker threads), or if it's multi-threaded, whether it's limited to only 2 threads or have scalability issues with higher thread counts.

Most video encoding programs, such are WME, Real, TMPENC, etc are multi-threaded.

~El~Jefe~ · Post by **~El~Jefe~** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 9:35 pm

for its price, a q6600 is by far the best chip out.

barring that, i would just get a 6550 and wait for the mega 3.2ghz penryn quads to come out later on this year. q6600 isnt a 1333mhz fsb, the 6550 is though.

just my thoughts. i like the q6600 personally, but not a for a silent machine.

eztiger2 · Post by **eztiger2** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:04 am

Also take into account its pretty trivial (click some buttons) to get that 2.4Ghz quad up to 3-3.2 Ghz on air cooling if you combo it with silentpcreview techniques and a decent motherboard.

Kev

Alex · Post by **Alex** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 9:45 am

I have a E6750 (dual) and I think I haven't had more than 50% CPU Usage yet. So I am happy to keep power, heat and noise down + keeping my money for future upgrades when I need it.

As everybody have said here I don't see any point in getting a quad unless you really get use of the extra cores.
If you do and think you can manage noise/heat to the levels you like then of course get the quad.

This choice is whence very dependent on what your personal beliefs/wishes are.

Nobody can know what you will be happy with and I think we can help you a lot more if you specify the rest of your rig.
What hard drive(s), fan(s), PSU, graphics card and case will you use.
They will determine your systems heat, noise and how powerful your computer will be (heavy gaming or light surfing?).

croddie · Post by **croddie** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 12:49 pm

OP, I would wait till Jan for Peryn if I were you. Power much better. Dual low power so get that unless you have special requirements that make quad better for you.

spookmineer · Post by **spookmineer** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:32 pm

Saw this just today: http://www.guru3d.com/article/processor/471/.

Only skimmed through it but it looks impressive.

wim · Post by **wim** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 5:48 pm

Alex wrote:This choice is whence very dependent on what your personal beliefs/wishes are.

Nobody can know what you will be happy with and I think we can help you a lot more if you specify the rest of your rig.
What hard drive(s), fan(s), PSU, graphics card and case will you use.
They will determine your systems heat, noise and how powerful your computer will be (heavy gaming or light surfing?).

yes you are right i will supply some more information..

the rest of the system will be a combination of my current stuff and some new bits which i haven't bought, or decided on, yet.. currently i have a Socket A XP2100+ system. from that i will probably only keep the PSU, which is a silverstone 30NF, and a nexus 120mm fan, and storage. storage will be on a NAS out of audible range, so dual gigabit ethernet board is desirable but not essential (can always add in another ethernet adapter). probably will run the os on one of the samsung 2.5" sata drives, solid state disks don't seem to be ready for this yet. my machine doesn't really have a case, it pretty much runs in open air (the mobo is vertical screwed onto the guts of a cannabilised old case). new mobo is still undecided but i would like it to be something hopefully low power consumption, with undervolting support in bios. prime suspect at the moment is gigabyte GA-P35-DS3R. for cpu heatsink i will buy whatever version of the ninja i need to fit on the mobo.

video card will almost surely be a 8800GT, whether i get a passive card stock or have to do aftermarket cooling with eg HR-03 GT depends on availability in .au. i will be running some games, i got quake 4 and never was able to play it on my old machine. and i have recently bought the orange box which really catalysed the urge to build new machine. ideally i want capability for bursts of heavy gaming but it's going to be light surfing, p2p, most of the time. want best of both worlds and will not compromise on noise in order to play games.

penryn sure does look tasty but if i wait for that then i'll want wait for nehalem, etc, it's just there is always something better around the corner so you can wait indefinitely.

djkest · Post by **djkest** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 6:31 am

Most users can't even get the most out of a dual core processor, so I'd recommend that. You also use less electricity, and produce less heat with the dual core. The obvious exception is if you do lots of video editing, or maybe media encoding, but that doesn't represent the average user.

shadestalker · Post by **shadestalker** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:41 am

For the specific uses cited, I wouldn't go with either of the processors you're looking at. A midrange C2D should be plenty for gaming IMO, especially if you're pushing 1600x1200 or higher resolution with AA/AF/etc. where the GPU begins to be a limiting factor.

I'm pining for a quad core, but only because I'm looking forward to transcoding my entire DVD collection at some point (storage is cheap!)

jimmyzaas · Post by **jimmyzaas** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:52 am

That is the exact same reason I'm getting a Q6600, for encoding xvid and x264..

I agree with that while Penryn looks to be a better choice.. A) you gotta wait till Jan 2008. and B) the price will always be higher than MSRP on launch.. say 349 USD versus 316 USD for the 2.66 GHz model.

You'd probably have to wait another 6 months before the 2.66 Quad Yorkfield to drop to Q6600 pricing right now. By then, Nehelam is already almost ready for launch and IS the next big jump.. then you'd feel ripped off buying a Penryn..

You can't catch up with Technology.. might as well grab what you need ATM..

I'm upgrading from an Athlon XP to Q6600.. so yea.. I needed it!

aristide1 · Post by **aristide1** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 11:28 am

Since you're building a machine to fold (prod prod, hint hint) the quad is the way to go.

duo vs quad

duo vs quad

Re: duo vs quad