To QUAD or not to QUAD, that is the question

[squiffy]

i can loan your pump?
But... Quad now = less to do in future?

It's one thing to "buy ahead" ie for video cards get a slightly higher end card, because you might also buy a higher resolution monitor so require the faster video card, but to buy way ahead is foolish, you're paying for it. Ie quad 8800GTX, so FEAR and oblivion at maxed everything is at 500 fps. Totally pointless. Unless you REALLY need it. Are you doing high resolution 3D rendering where a single process takes days, and during this time your PC is unusable because CPU load is at 100%?

Having two copies of notepad open doesn't require multi-core CPU.

Only now games are getting dual core support, even then it's quite sparse. tbh most of the time I could be happy with a 3700 single core (I own a 3700+ and 4400X2, both the same speed) it's just the occasions when I do encoding x 2, encoding + gaming the dual core comes in handy.

For HD playback it looks like I'm going to have to upgrade my 3700+ to a 3800X2. But that'll be when PC HD-DVD drives are released and starting to buy HD-DVD titles, that's still another year away. Current SD AVI's and DVD's and 3700+ copes well enough.

 

[The.Manxman]

x6800 is now more expensive to the Quad. I cant see any point (does not seem right) in paying more for an older less rated CPU

A good point. I read somewhere that Intel were stopping production of the X6800?

 

[lay-z-boy]

Why on earth would you buy a dual core cpu when quad is avaliable for around the same price, multithreading is the way of the future and its much cooler to have 4 cores than 2.

 

[M!!cook]

i would have agreed with you on that one LAZY! but i read so many posts on here that people say no deal! go dual. I just wanted a slice of the cake! i really cant understand why folk say Dual but i am not an Intel guy so i neeed to ask!

 

[lay-z-boy]

i would have agreed with you on that one LAZY! but i read so many posts on here that people say no deal! go dual. I just wanted a slice of the cake! i really cant understand why folk say Dual but i am not an Intel guy so i neeed to ask!

BS to that I say, it's people who cant afford quad core or who want to think there is no use for it that tell you to get the dual over the quad.

If I had the spare cash I would without a doubt but I'm trying to shake off my upgrade bug.

 

[FrankJH]

To be honest I would stick with 2 cores until you need it - put the money in the bank until quad games or other applications you need actually utilise them fully

For the same money you will get a better and faster cpu which you will use fully and in the meantime will not notice any loss in performance ....apart from in the epenss department

 

[dbilsborough]

Why on earth would you buy a dual core cpu when quad is avaliable for around the same price, multithreading is the way of the future and its much cooler to have 4 cores than 2.

I think you'll find it's twice as hot, not cooler

It really depends on whether you want to spend more on electric and generate more heat for no real benefit. The quad will not be used in most circumstances unless you do very specific things like 3DSMax.

 

[FrankJH]

I think you'll find it's twice as hot, not cooler

It really depends on whether you want to spend more on electric and generate more heat for no real benefit. The quad will not be used in most circumstances unless you do very specific things like 3DSMax.

Exactly my thought - and if he had to ask its unlikely he is a user of programs that would utilise the 4 cores

Get an E6300 / 6400 (or 6600 if you must) and oc it - that will keep you happy for the time being and allow you to save 3/4 of the funds for when all cores are useful

 

[Voltage]

id wait a bit, see how the new games and the proper release of vista use the quad.

 

[Reality|Bites]

Why blow over £600 on a cpu? just buy an E6600 now then when quad core goes mainstream you could have a faster quad core for half the price probably.

Look at the people who were sucked into buying the Athlon 64 FX cpu's, where do they stand now? lol.

 

[HangTime]

Given the choice I'd go for quad core, since it would likely have higher resale value in the future.

 

[Flanno]

I recently swapped my X6800 for a Quad *a mate of mine found he could only hit 3.3ghz on the quad on air so swapped me directly*.

Do I regret the swap....right now yes! I have the thing running at 3.2ghz and underload (running Orthos on just 2 cores), 2 of the cores will hit 80 degrees. All my cores are idling in mid to high 40's. And I have to keep the Tuniq Tower fan turned up past 1250rpm. About the only thing the quad is good for is benching in 3dmark

On my X6800, I could run at 3.6ghz and never break 60 degrees. Idling along nicely in low 30's. And I kept my fan at minimum speed. It was faster in all games, though not noticeably - again only benchmarks.

So from a heat/noise perspective I recommend a dual over a quad anyday. If heat/noise does not bother you or you are going to water cool it, then get the quad because eventually games will start making use of it (thinking Valve). Speed wise they are so close that your gpu is going to make the difference anyway in gaming.