PC hardware forum: Which processor is better, the quad core of the duo core.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q9300_8.html#sect1

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

... 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.

... 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.

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.

A 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.

I 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.

just 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.

well 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...

I 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.