HP TouchSmart. Touch the future now.
PC hardware: Which processor is better, the quad core of the duo core.
Which processor is better, the quad core of the duo core.
by J855 - 5/14/08 9:52 PMHello, I'm wondering which of these processors would be better for gaming and video editing, thanks.
Intel® Core™2 Q6600 Quad-Core (8MB L2 cache,2.4GHz,1066FSB)
or
Intel® Core™ 2 Duo Processor E8400 (6MB L2 Cache,3.0GHz,1333FSB)
let the benchmarks decide
by ramarc - 5/15/08 5:54 AM In reply to: Which processor is better, the quad core of the duo core. by J855http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q9300_8.html#sect1
Quad better for mutlitasking when programs take advantage
by zxcvb531 - 5/16/08 6:28 PM In reply to: let the benchmarks decide by ramarcYou can set each cpu of the quad to run the program that supports quad , faster in rendering video.
Quad.
by R. Proffitt
- 5/15/08 5:55 AM
In reply to: Which processor is better, the quad core of the duo core. by J855
You'll get naysayers but I'm writing from hands on use and my friends that have them. We set them up with 2 or 3GB RAM (we run the common 32 bit OS) and for video the bomb is that it RENDERS video at very fast rates. Disregard the naysayers and go test drive these beasts.
Also, you didn't tell which video card which is the make and break for video games. Try this list -> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-cards,1805.html
Bob
either is fast but let benchmarks decide
by ramarc - 5/15/08 8:23 AM In reply to: Quad. by R. Proffitt
the e8400 is faster than the q6600 in xvid and divx encoding and sysmarks' video creation. when sse4 optimized editting software is released, the e8400 will be even faster. the e8400 is also faster in just about every game. (supreme commander and unreal tourney 3 are the exceptions in which case they're about equal.)
a q6600 will be faster in adobe premiere and sony vegas since those apps can fully utilize all four cores. but in entry-level editting apps the e8400 will be faster.
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/695/5/
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2282401,00.asp
You will get naysayers...
by fbbbb - 5/16/08 12:27 PM In reply to: Quad. by R. Proffitt
... who have even more experience.
Examine your video editing applications carefully. If they are multithreaded, then you will be better off with quadcore. For consumer-level video editing, many applications are not multithreaded or not effectively multithreaded, and a faster dual-core will do the job better than a slower quad-core.
The same, but to a greater extent, goes for games. But that's balanced out by games being far more graphics processor intensive in general use, despite not being very multithreaded yet.
Quadcore and beyond is the future, but not all the apps you actually use day in and day out may take full advantage of it. Look into that first before you make your processor choice.
quad may fit well
by squirtlewa - 5/16/08 7:46 PM In reply to: You will get naysayers... by fbbbbbenchmark tests tend to show processor speed as the most important thing, so that a fast dual performs better than a slower quad.
However, benchmarkers operate with what seems to me to be an odd assumption -- namely they run the tests with only the one bit of software operating. In real life, while you're doing a render or ripping a dvd or whatever, you'll also be running your email, firefox, MSWord, antivirus, bittorrent, solitaire, etc.
So despite the fact that most software isn't written to take full advantage of a quad, having a 3rd or 4th core might be nice to help with all the processes your computer's doing at the same time.
Maybe surprising, but not really...
by fbbbb - 5/17/08 3:46 PM In reply to: quad may fit well by squirtlewa... multithreaded apps are where quad cores really shine. With 'ordinary' apps you don't really notice the difference, even though you may be multitasking. If for example a video render app is not multithreaded and only aware of one processor, it'll max out one core while the other will multitask the rest of your also ordinary apps pretty well.
Sorry, I notice a pop with ordinary apps.
by R. Proffitt - 5/17/08 3:50 PM
In reply to: Maybe surprising, but not really... by fbbbb
For me ordinary apps are dual core apps like video rendering, trans coding and more.
Do you own a quad or are you writing from using less than these new machines?
I know you love to banter with me, so here you go.
Bob
I qualified ordinary apps in my posts.
by fbbbb - 5/17/08 4:12 PM In reply to: Sorry, I notice a pop with ordinary apps. by R. Proffitt
Quite a number of consumer video-related apps are still not multicore aware, and I was referring to the perceived execution speed between a significantly faster dualcore vs a quadcore when multitasking non-multithreaded apps. As I said in the post above that, your results will depend on the multicore awareness of the apps you use.
And you got me there Bob - I don't actually have a quad core desktop at home at the moment. Having ditched the XPS 720H2C's for Skulltrails,the oldest desktops I have at home right now are the also 8-core 3.2 Mac Pro's.
To time this I use a stopwatch.
by R. Proffitt - 5/17/08 4:29 PM
In reply to: I qualified ordinary apps in my posts. by fbbbb
It seems to be the only way to give it a real shakedown. The more cores do give Windows some feeling of not slowing to a crawl so we have to get the stopwatch out to compare encoding times.
As to the Apple, I wish there was a quad for the iMac. But for now we have to live with the still fine dual core performances.
Bob
maybe-
by guywayne - 5/18/08 12:23 PM In reply to: quad may fit well by squirtlewaA quad core will handle more apps running at one time better than a dual core, but only if the operating system supports that. I can't swear to it, but I don't think that any desktop Windows OS will run one app on one core and another app on a different core.
The best Bang for the Buck....
by EricTheO - 5/16/08 11:01 PM In reply to: Which processor is better, the quad core of the duo core. by J855After doing some reasearch( I just finished putting together my system two days ago), I settled on the Intel Dual Core Quad Q9450. It is a very impressive CPU and can be had for just over 300 dollars. Lots of headroom for safe overclocking in the right system and 12mb Cache is great.
-Eric
quad core vs. dual core
by Ron Geiken - 5/17/08 9:47 AM In reply to: Which processor is better, the quad core of the duo core. by J855I have a new computer (about 9 months old), and opted for a quad core Q6600 and 4 gig of ram. Everything really hums along fine. At times, I have seen 250% or more core usage. (Adding up the percentages that each core shows it is using). I have vista, and there is gadget that allows you to monitor this function. The advantage of a quad core is that things can be going on in the background, and you can still easily use your computer for other function. The Quad core is evidently in the desktop and I also have a Laptop with a core duo (2 cores). For the future, getting a quad core or greater processor will make sure that your computer is easy to use and is not slowed down by background software using the processor. I have AVG anti virus, Diskeeper 2008, and several other programs that work in the background along with Microsoft's own "housekeeping", and quad core allows all this to go on without missing a beat. Since 4 gig of ram is not too expensive today, that should be the minimum to keep a smooth running computer. I enjoy using my new desktop more than any other computer that I have ever had, and that goes back to 1984. Additionally, I am using 1676 meg of my available memory, so there is always plenty in reserve. Not much swap file activity with that much ram.
Q6600-G0
by samkh - 5/17/08 11:19 AM In reply to: Which processor is better, the quad core of the duo core. by J855because you can easily OC it to the stock clock of duo and still have 2 cores to spare 
AND shops are shedding it for 10-15% less. Now if you can squeeze your budget for daily essentials, get the Q9450.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
