PC hardware: Which processor is better, the quad core of the duo core.
oclocking 9450
by ellis feigenbaum - 5/17/08 2:28 PM In reply to: Q6600-G0 by samkhjust for info - the 9450 has a multilier of 8 - if you really want to oc - then get the 9550 which has a 9x multiplier.
not sure what the price differential is but its a beter proposition if oclocking is your game.
bang for the buck
by pjmarkert - 5/17/08 8:59 PM In reply to: Which processor is better, the quad core of the duo core. by J855I tested some heavy duty graphics apps with a duo 3G and a quad 2.4G.
The apps all used only 2 cores and the 3G duo outperformed the 2.4G quad and was cheaper.
These were 3d visual simulation apps on 4 Dell Precisions with a geforce 8800GT 512M connected to 42" lcd 1080i tv's and 3 gigs of ram running xp pro.
amd is better
by ruddin_hd - 5/17/08 11:54 PM In reply to: Which processor is better, the quad core of the duo core. by J855well i m using amd athlon right now n i think even u shud think abt using amd over intel...duo or quad..its faster in every aspect over intel...there is a comparison between all processors (amd and intel) on cnet...check it out...
multi-threaded apps.
by extreme343gs - 5/18/08 7:33 AM In reply to: Which processor is better, the quad core of the duo core. by J855depend on wht apps u basically use. mostly all video editing apps (new 1s) are usually multi-threaded i.e. the programs are written to use multiple cores. games however are not. so u land wu with this ugly problem of your pc/mac using only one core for single-threaded apps. killing performance to a great extend. so decide properly. Quake III Arena’s r_smp variable is 1 in very small field of games that are actually multi-threaded for multiple cores.
so end point;
games (most of them): core duo.
video edit : quad core.
hard choice?
I bought the duo
by 3rdalbum - 5/19/08 5:07 AM In reply to: Which processor is better, the quad core of the duo core. by J855I had a choice between the duo and the quad, where they were exactly the same price.
I bought the duo, because it's faster per core. In my experience doing all kinds of things, I find it incredibly difficult to use the full capability of both cores. Usually, things are single-threaded, or the CPU is so fast that the hard disk can't keep up with both cores; you end off with the processor maxing out at 70%, and the rest of the CPU time it is waiting for data.
With a quad core, single-threaded tasks will perform slower.
Even if you have two cores running at 70% each, a good operating system should still be able to keep the background tasks responsive with the remaining 30% of the CPU capacity. Not sure if Windows counts as a "good operating system" :-P If you're not utilising the rest of that 30%, then having more cores to spread those background tasks around will not help.
You might want to look at some real-world benchmarks between Intel and AMD processors, as you might find that the gap between them is smaller when you're talking about things that involve a lot of throughput.
Q6600 !
by dmille46 - 5/19/08 5:31 AM In reply to: Which processor is better, the quad core of the duo core. by J855Q6600 is best in all scenarios re: 32-bit, 64-bit, or over-clocking. The Q6600 has the best performance and scalability. With the more even playing field of 32-bit mode, the Q6600 is still better, maybe not by allot but it is better. I use the Q6600 for gaming, and I will use it for editing in the future. I have four CPUs waiting to service my apps - life is good!
If you don't believe me check the benchmark sources such as Passmark.
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
