Find tech advice for business here
Desktops: Dual core or quad core for a new desktop?
Dual core or quad core for a new desktop?
by WebDragon8 - 1/21/08 6:24 PMHello all! I've been hunting for a new system to replace my nearly 8 year old Dell Dimension 8100. I'm looking for a system which will last me through the years as far as main components go. I can keep upgrading RAM, video cards, etc. but the processor and motherboard I'd like to invest in for the long haul (another 6-7 years or so). So, I'm wondering which investment will get me the most for my money: Dual core, Core 2 duo, or Quad core? I'm looking at Intel processors only at this point, and in pre-built or custom factory built systems. Which processor should I be gunning for?
To clarify, I don't use the computer much for gaming, but I do a lot of graphics work, have big movie files, and do website building. Any suggestions would be very appreciated!
If you're keeing it that long...I'd go quad.
by VAPCMD - 1/21/08 8:16 PM In reply to: Dual core or quad core for a new desktop? by WebDragon8Here's a link on what Intel CPUs are coming.
http://www.anandtech.com/GalleryImage.aspx?id=19
I'm sure tests on them will start showing up on various tech review sites shortly.
An advantage of custom PCs or clones ... it seems easier to get BIOS updates allowing you to swap CPUs within the same socket. If you go that route...you could go with a faster dual core and later substitute a faster Quad.
VAPCMD
Dual Core Vs. Quad Core
by supersoj - 1/25/08 7:54 PM In reply to: Dual core or quad core for a new desktop? by WebDragon8The wonderful part here, is that you stated what you use it for.
If you routinely have music playing, while you work, with messenger running, and a few other background things like Anti-virus systems, etc. then Quad Core IS highly recommended.
The Quad and Dual cores both have the same amount of processing speed, and can team up to handle excessively difficult tasks like gamming, however, if you are using four things at once, this is when you will note the massive benefits. Instead of the CPU being devoted strictly to Windows Media Player((The CPU Hog of the universe...)), ONE core can handle Windows Media Player, while the others run things like Paint Shop Pro, or Messenger, allowing your' productivity to boost, significantly.
However, the Dual Core also still has alot to be said for it. Since you don't really game, you won't especially notice it, except perhaps, with Windows Media Player. If you have half of your processing speed devoted to one core, which is handling something like a Command and Conquer game, or Windows Media Player, you tend to notice that whatever else you are doing gets 'dumped' on the second core. Normally, it's a good thing, but these system-resource-intensive programs, including Paint Shop Pro 10 or higher, and Windows Media Player will but heads. This is where I say, for ME, a Dual Core is handy, because I do only one thing at a time, and generally don't listen to music that much. However, if you have three things going at the same time, Go Dual Core. It's just that simple. It should be pointed out that the Quad Core is capable of devoting two cores to the same task, if necessary, so I suppose a Quad Core would work for me. Dual Core is becomming so Pentium III, out-dated, and no longer needed. But still pretty darn quick aboot it.
If it is video then go Quad
by DOSpower - 1/25/08 9:27 PM In reply to: Dual core or quad core for a new desktop? by WebDragon8Have a look at Toms hardware guide (www.tomhardware.com) and in many of the tests there it appears that a number of the video software packages out at the moment (and presumably into the future) are written to optimise a quad core setup. I am currently looking to upgrade my PC and am waiting for the new 45 nanometre processors from intel. Also look to get at least 2GB of RAM.
Good luck and enjoy the build!
forget dual core
by F_demon - 1/26/08 1:15 AM In reply to: Dual core or quad core for a new desktop? by WebDragon8First things first.
You talk about Dual Core, Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad (or quadcore).
It's a bit confusing, but the Intel dual core processors are first
generation dual core processors and are bsically two single cores put together. The are generally not as fast, consume a lot more power and get hotter than modern dual cores.
The Core 2 Duo are the modern dual cores. They are true dual cores, and generally faster, more efficient and get (a lot) less hot.
This month the newest processors are coming out. These are the E8200, E8400 and the E8500.
At this moment the E8400 is probably the best for the money.
It's fast, cheap and can run at amazingly cool temperatures.
In the next few months the new quadcores are also coming out.
I play games, so I run a core 2 duo.
The extra cores are only used in a few games so a quadcore is overkill for me.
However, if you need raw processing power, and run programs that can adress all cores, a quadcore is more usefull.
But in general, a faster dual core is more usefull than a slower quadcore.
p.s. It's www.tomshardware.com
Thanks!
by geognerd - 1/26/08 11:35 AM In reply to: forget dual core by F_demonI am so lucky I found this topic. I was putting together specs for a new desktop last week and was facing a similar dilemma, dual vs quad-core. The main program I work with does not utilize hyperthreading or multiple cores, so I figured out I should just go with a fast dual-core. I settled on the E6850. Thanks to some of the posts here, I discovered that I somehow missed the new 45nm processors. The E8400 is $55 less than the E6850 at one site. I'd assume the newer E8400 processor is better; time to do more research.
invisible cores
by GTEJR - 1/26/08 4:59 PM In reply to: forget dual core by F_demonIntel quad-cores are NOT 4 cores but one physical core with virtual
cores in attendance.The AMD quad-core has 4 physical cores.
An expensive quad core
by 3rdalbum - 1/26/08 5:44 AM In reply to: Dual core or quad core for a new desktop? by WebDragon8As you say that you work with video, I would suggest a quad core, like a Core 2 Quad. BUT: Do NOT buy a computer with Intel's cheapest quad core. It is the same price, yet slower, than Intel's best Core 2 Duo. If you have one intensive program running in one thread, it will take up 100% of ONE core - the other cores cannot take part of the load - so it makes sense to go for two fast cores rather than four slow cores.
You'd have to get the middle-of-the-range or top-of-the-range Core 2 Quad to see a benefit, and those processors are quite expensive. If your computer is going to last you 5 years it may be worth it.
Other posters are suggesting quad core for "If you're running a virus scanner, MSN Messenger and Windows Media Player at the same time". To put it nicely, this is ridiculous. Windows unfortunately isn't very good at multitasking, but it can handle multiple non-intensive applications on the same core. Also, a virus scanner will make your hard disk run a lot, which would slow down all programs regardless of how many cores you have.
I have a 65nm Core 2 Duo, the top-of-the-range one, and for everyday tasks it's overkill. When gaming, one core runs up to 100% and the other core manages the operating system (about 5% load). I have to be doing something like encoding video, compiling software, or doing two INTENSIVE things at the same time, to see 100% load on both the cores.
Frankly I'm not even sure if video encoding can be split up into four different threads, and if it can whether this is actually efficient.
Thanks for the help everyone!
by WebDragon8 - 1/26/08 8:01 AM In reply to: Dual core or quad core for a new desktop? by WebDragon8I ended up snagging Best Buy's deal on the Acer Aspire M5630. Core 2 Quad 6600 processor and a 500 gig hard drive, not a terrible deal at all for around $550. Good to know that better processors will be coming out soon. The technology only gets better and cheaper with time, so I'm hoping what I saved on this system will be something I can invest in upgrades further down the line.
Thanks to everyone for your help! With all of the processors crowding the field at the moment its difficult to see which one is best suited for specific needs. I haven't set the new one up yet but will post a review when I put it through its paces.
Dual or Quad?
by aberathy - 1/26/08 10:01 AM In reply to: Dual core or quad core for a new desktop? by WebDragon8@ this point in time the quad core isnt superior. Dont spend more than $300 to build a fast reliable dual core system. AMD black ed. Dual core 6400 motherboard/cpu combo & a 256 mb pci card will do exceptional. Todays technology is changing so rapidly that it outdates itself almost yearly combined w/ the cheap component prices it doesnt make any sense to even want a desktop to last more than 2 years. Look @ p/c's built 5 or 6 years ago and compare-thats what you will have in 5 years...lol...a pentium 2 by comparison. [NOCROP IT lab rep.] hope this helps
aberathy2@pacbell.net
Spam or more SPAM?
by R. Proffitt
- 1/26/08 10:03 AM
In reply to: Dual or Quad? by aberathy
Posting your email address here is going to get you 4 x more spam. Do you want me to delete your post?
Go Quad and Use the Old PC for a Firewall
by IpowerOne - 1/27/08 9:26 PM In reply to: Dual core or quad core for a new desktop? by WebDragon8Hey Guy,
If you're thinking long-term, definitely go Quad-Core. Like the other guys said, don't buy the biggest one out there, but go Quad. As for your graphics, you can get a decent 512MB-PCIexpress for around $100 or less at TigerDirect.com. If you're using Windows Media Player, see if you can find a plugin that converts Wav and MOV files to Flash on the fly. Over 80% of all video on the web these days are in Flash format, so Adobe Flash will handle most of that.
If you're going with Linux (as I'd recommend) this plugin is already built into the FireFox browser, and it saves you on security as well. But the really great thing you've got here is using your old PC for a hardware firewall and network server. With this setup you get the same powerful security designed by the NSA for the Pentagon, and used by 70% of all commercial companies on the web. And it's a free download, burn it to a CD, then install it and configure by the GUI interface, and your NEW PC is hidden behind the firewall, and you don't need to run your CPU-Hungry virus-scanner anymore.
Get the Linux downloads at http://DistroWatch.com . If you're not fluent in Linux, find a geek friend to do it for you and buy him a 12-pack or two. It'll be well worth the investment; You'll have the coolest Quad PC with a cool new Linux firewall, and it'll last you 8-10 years or so, given your current range of applications.
As a side-note; The KDE desktop of Linux just upgraded to 4.0, but they still have a few bugs to work out. When the new release comes out in 2-3 months or so, the new Plasma interface along with the 3D 'Compiz/Beryl' desktop will blow the ASS off of Vista. Sorry, Bill-Gateans, the truth is still the truth, no matter where it comes from. See http://KDE.org .
Anyway, check all of this oput, and I hope some of it helps. The Benster!
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
