Mobile Discussion
Gamer Discussion
Gadget Discusion
Laptop Discussion
Reviews & News
Photo Gallery
Home Register Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   InterWeb > Everything Else > PC Technical Support

Register Now for FREE!
Our records show you have not yet registered to our forums. To sign up for your FREE account INSTANTLY fill out the form below!

Username: Password: Confirm Password: E-Mail: Confirm E-Mail:
Birthday:     Agree to forum rules 

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Shirley Barrett is offline  
Shirley Barrett
Junior Member
 
Shirley Barrett's Avatar
 

Send a private message to Shirley Barrett 
Old 12-04-2009, 09:44 AM
  #1 (permalink)
Core 2 Duo vs. Core 2 Quad-Overall

I’m choosing between two Intel processors a quad core running 2.83 GHz and a dual core running 3.3 GHz. They both have an fsb of 1333 MHz but the dual is approximately 50 bucks cheaper than the quad. With and devoid of oc them which is better? For gaming and for daily employ?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Ken Quinnell is offline  
Ken Quinnell
Junior Member
 
Ken Quinnell's Avatar
 

Send a private message to Ken Quinnell 
Old 12-04-2009, 09:45 AM
  #2 (permalink)
If you typically game the Dual core will be improved. If you do Photoshop a lot or instruct then the quad will be better.Personally I sense a 2.83GHZ quad will cover quite much everything you desire to do on a computer.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Jimmy Jack is offline  
Jimmy Jack
Junior Member
 
Jimmy Jack's Avatar
 

Send a private message to Jimmy Jack 
Old 12-04-2009, 09:46 AM
  #3 (permalink)
I would obtain the quad. Future games will support multi cores. If u run vista your extra cores will be careful of other tasks. Dual core is best with games presently because of higher clocks but the dissimilarity isn’t much? Quad cores can oc to over 3.0 GHz so the dissimilarity between the 2 cpus is like a 2-5fps max. But if you don’t oc the dual core has a slight edge.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Shirley Barrett is offline  
Shirley Barrett
Junior Member
 
Shirley Barrett's Avatar
 

Send a private message to Shirley Barrett 
Old 12-04-2009, 09:48 AM
  #4 (permalink)
Thanks for the huge amount of replies. So I was just marveling how far do you imagine I can oc the quad with a stock fan and heatsink? (I am openness towards the quad). I have no experience doing oc but I’ll form it out you have to begin somewhere. And I realize there were other topics like that but those were last winter and wondered if anything distorted because technology increases faster. Thanks again.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Helmut Bakaitis is offline  
Helmut Bakaitis
Junior Member
 
Helmut Bakaitis's Avatar
 

Send a private message to Helmut Bakaitis 
Old 12-04-2009, 09:49 AM
  #5 (permalink)
I deduction it counts on the cooling of your case, room temperature, the exacting processor you contain, etc. but I'd be very astonished if you could hit 3.0 with the stock cooler.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Estelle Salmone is offline  
Estelle Salmone
Junior Member
 
Estelle Salmone's Avatar
 

Send a private message to Estelle Salmone 
Old 12-04-2009, 09:50 AM
  #6 (permalink)
No, Get the Quad, as still games that are not optimized for one will advantage from the other cores captivating over windows procedures.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Richard James is offline  
Richard James
Junior Member
 
Richard James's Avatar
 

Send a private message to Richard James 
Old 12-04-2009, 09:52 AM
  #7 (permalink)
3GHz on the Q9550 would be easy on the stock cooler because it’s not that distant anyways.

I favor the quad core because I tend to do a lot even when I am playing a game. It’s good to be able to alt+tab further than TF2 to check the internet and open some other programs then alt+tab back in without it still slowing down.

Occasionally I will run my anti-virus scan, have some IE7s open and a few other programs while playing TF2 and it just continues going. I have a Q660 OCed to 3GHz BTW.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Alex Proyas is offline  
Alex Proyas
Junior Member
 
Alex Proyas's Avatar
 

Send a private message to Alex Proyas 
Old 12-04-2009, 09:53 AM
  #8 (permalink)
Get a quad since after a while your service tab will obtain obstruct quite badly particularly under vista. The extra cores that are not "working" can be careful of the background service and let the other cores think on game.

Keep in mind all review done is on a fresh install windows with most service turned off and the dual core excels. In real life you wouldn’t turn all service off and reinstall windows each time you play game! Do you?

Plus the novel 45nm quad don’t overclock as bad they go quite high as well. So there isn’t a main gap in between dual and quad core.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Johanna Pigott is offline  
Johanna Pigott
Junior Member
 
Johanna Pigott's Avatar
 

Send a private message to Johanna Pigott 
Old 12-04-2009, 09:53 AM
  #9 (permalink)
A somewhat lower clocked quad will break higher clocked duals yet in non-quad optimized games, contrary to conservative wisdom. It takes around 200+ MHz dissimilarity for dual to pull in front. This is due to background procedures moving to spare cores in quad, freeing 2 cores devoted for the large program.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Lachy Hulme is offline  
Lachy Hulme
Junior Member
 
Lachy Hulme's Avatar
 

Send a private message to Lachy Hulme 
Old 12-04-2009, 09:54 AM
  #10 (permalink)
Counts on the game, if it’s TF2 which is insanely CPU rigorous since it doesn't support over 1 core, then the Dual is improved. I'm going to suppose that dual you're allowing for on purchasing is the E8600; with a good air cooler you should can hit 4.5ghz which would help in many situations, particularly in today's gaming.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
550 W psu enough for Quad Core? Zanita Xever PC Technical Support 7 11-26-2009 03:00 PM
Which one is better AMD Athlon II X4 620 Quad-Core Processor or Intel core 2 duo Zutoia Deunoro PC Technical Support 6 11-12-2009 03:50 PM
Core i7 vs. Core 2 Quad for Gaming John Hilton PC Technical Support 6 10-15-2009 04:00 PM
i7 vs. core 2 Quad Billy Hilton PC Technical Support 19 10-15-2009 03:39 PM
Core 2 Duo E8500 vs. Core 2 Quad 9550 LEFÈBVRE ROUX PC Technical Support 8 10-11-2009 11:34 AM


All times are GMT +5.5. The time now is 12:03 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.1.0
Copyright InterwebAd Management by RedTyger

SEO by SubmitEdge

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219