CPU question, potentially complicated

2009-07-10 22:53:37

#1

Benzin: Member; +576|6260

OK, I've been turning this over in my head and been unable to come up with a solid answer, just a guess.

Is a lower clock quad core processor from Intel faster than a higher-end dual core? Say, the Q versus the E-series. Which one would actually be faster and more useful? I am guessing the quad, simply because of the extra cores, but at the same time, if it can't process the info as quickly as the E in terms of clock speed, would the extra 2 cores really make all that huge of a difference?

Discuss.

2009-07-10 22:58:24

#2

TopHat01: Limitless; +117|6166|CA

The E series are great for all old and recent games, since most PC games have yet to utilize all four cores, mind GTA:IV, but that will play nicely with the correct GFX (275/285) and an E8400 any day.

I think it boils down to your usage, budget, and if you're trying to future proof yourself or not. For a budget/mid-level gaming system, a C2D will do fine, but if you are into more CPU intense programs or want e-pen1s enlargement, you could go with a quad; but get an i7 if you're going to get a quad.

Last edited by TopHat01 (2009-07-10 22:58:49)

Check out my YouTube channel

2009-07-11 00:49:47

#3

Defiance: Member; +438|6933

If you multitask a lot, quad.
If you don't, dual core.

Reason: Most apps still don't use more then 1 core, but more and more are jumping on to two (especially games). A minority are using 4, mostly high end design apps (lots of CAD apps). If you're usually running one-two heavy apps, you may get more benefit from the higher clock.

2009-07-11 08:06:12

#4

GC_PaNzerFIN: Work and study @ Technical Uni; +528|6676|Finland

Gonna play the upcoming games, multitast or do heavy video eediting etc. = quad (PII for mid range and i7 if you can afford)

regular use, plays games upto today and maybe not the heaviest titles of future (maybe rts gamer etc.) = dual core

edit: you can just get a quad and nice cooler and oc it to high clocks. you get both the high frequenzy and raw power of 4 cores.

Last edited by GC_PaNzerFIN (2009-07-11 08:10:32)

3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8

2009-07-11 13:19:26

#5

Benzin: Member; +576|6260

But that doesn't answer my question: Which is faster? A low clock quad or a high clock dual?

2009-07-11 13:27:52

#6

jsnipy: ...; +3,277|6784|...

CapnNismo wrote:
But that doesn't answer my question: Which is faster? A low clock quad or a high clock dual?

It really depends on the application you are doing. Looks at these charts, they may give you some point of reference.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desk … ks,31.html

Last edited by jsnipy (2009-07-11 13:28:19)

2009-07-11 16:56:19

#7

Defiance: Member; +438|6933

CapnNismo wrote:
But that doesn't answer my question: Which is faster? A low clock quad or a high clock dual?

It depends largely on the software you use. It's not as easy as 3.0 Ghz x 2 cores = 6 Ghz.

2009-07-11 19:19:56

#8

The_Sniper_NM: Official EVGA Fanboy; +94|6375|SC | USA |

The best of both worlds tbh.
/looks at his Q9650

2009-07-12 05:38:51

#9

Benzin: Member; +576|6260

jsnipy wrote:
CapnNismo wrote:
But that doesn't answer my question: Which is faster? A low clock quad or a high clock dual?
It really depends on the application you are doing. Looks at these charts, they may give you some point of reference.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desk … ks,31.html

thanks, I'll take a look.

2009-07-12 06:29:44

#10

IrishGrimReaper: Field Marshal | o |; +142|6983|Ireland | Monaghan

Are you planning on upgrading Nismo?

Or is it just a general question?

Intel Core i7 CPU 920 @ 4GHz || 3x2 GB OCZ 1600Mhz DDR3 || 80GB Intel X25-M Gen 2 || KFA2 GTX 480 1536Mb ||| Samsung T220 || Xonar DX 7.1 || AV 40 || P6T Deluxe V2 || Win 7 HP 64 Bit || Lian Li P80

2009-07-12 14:52:27

#11

GR34: Member; +215|6807|ALBERTA> CANADA

quad. /thread

BF2S Forums CPU question, potentially complicated

CapnNismo wrote:

CapnNismo wrote:

jsnipy wrote:

CapnNismo wrote:

Board footer