1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

    Dismiss Notice

quad or dual

Discussion in 'CPUs' started by hazzacool, 21 Feb 2010.

  1. hazzacool

    Associate

    Joined: 12 Dec 2008

    Posts: 55

    hey, i'm helping a mate put together a gaming rig

    i'm just wondering, which would be faster running games or general?

    a dual core processor at 3ghz

    or

    a quad-core at 2.6ghz?

    ty
     
  2. Strawberry

    Hitman

    Joined: 29 Dec 2009

    Posts: 649

    Location: Germany

    Some games use all 4 cores though most use only two.

    Depends on budget really.
     
  3. hazzacool

    Associate

    Joined: 12 Dec 2008

    Posts: 55

    oh right kl, ty for info
     
  4. UncertainGod

    Gangster

    Joined: 5 Jan 2010

    Posts: 133

    Even the games that do use all available cores don't do so in an efficient manner, I'm sticking to dual-core until tech like bulldozer comes along which will change the map a bit.
     
  5. stulid

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: 17 Jan 2010

    Posts: 66,847

    Location: weston-super-mare

    Also depends on levels of cache memory and plenty more other stuff
     
  6. OpenToSuggestions

    Capodecina

    Joined: 5 Aug 2006

    Posts: 11,017

    Location: Derbyshire

    Really depends on the cpu in question.
    Are we talking about core 2 duo dual cores and quads or are we talking about the newer i3/i5/i7 or are we talking amd? Or a mixture?

    In general, if I was putting together a rig for myself to last 2 years before a cpu upgrade, I would be looking at quad cores every time.
    There is nothing wrong with dual core, but it just isn't the way forward. Even the new i3/i5 that are dual core simulate 2 more via hyperthreading and they are the budget range.
     
    Last edited: 21 Feb 2010
  7. hazzacool

    Associate

    Joined: 12 Dec 2008

    Posts: 55

    intel core 2 duos and quads, maybe i3/i5/i7 (wat are the i series ones, can someone explain please? i've left the computing scene for a while you see).

    thanks in advance
     
  8. Marine-RX179

    Capodecina

    Joined: 6 Feb 2010

    Posts: 14,343

    Only go Core2 Duo/Quad if you want to save money and use existing socket 775 MB. If you are building new, definite go i3/i5/i7.

    Speed wise i7 920 (£220 Quad)>i5 750(£150 Quad)>i3 530 (£100 Dual) for bother games AND all other general usage.

    Sidenote: Core 2 Duo E8000 series is slower than i5 530 (a i3 530 at 3.5GHz is already faster than a E8400 at 4.25GHz).
     
    Last edited: 21 Feb 2010
  9. OpenToSuggestions

    Capodecina

    Joined: 5 Aug 2006

    Posts: 11,017

    Location: Derbyshire

    Indeed. The i7 920, i5 750 (only i5 quad - The other i5's are just a speeded up i3) and the i3 530 are the intel cpu's to buy now.

    For a gaming rig I would be looking for an i5 750 and clock it. The i7 is the fastest but then it costs more. The i3 is good but may have problems this year and next when more multi-thread games come out. I hear GTA4 on pc was ported badly and was pants on a dual core system.
     
  10. Jake_2792

    Associate

    Joined: 20 Feb 2010

    Posts: 17

    Location: Middlesbrough

    Quad to futureproof. Dual core will perform little under a quad right now, for most games. But more 4 core games are hitting the market and the extra 2 cores will come in handy if the game requires them.

    Quad for futureproofing value.
     
  11. feeddagoat

    Gangster

    Joined: 19 Nov 2008

    Posts: 412

    Location: carnmoney outside Belfast

    For gaming the extra core is handy. When Im gaming I sometimes have vent or TS open too so Its nice to have that extra headroom. A few titles are starting to use quads now but the difference between 2.6 and 3 GHz will be minimal with abit of overclocking. Most mid range cards bottleneck around 3GHz depending on resolution.

    Go quad if you can afford it
     
  12. SpAceD

    Gangster

    Joined: 21 Jan 2004

    Posts: 165

    Location: Planet Krypton

    I agree, future proof the system.
     
  13. JonJ678

    Capodecina

    Joined: 22 Dec 2008

    Posts: 10,371

    Location: England

    Source? How does it work out with hyperthreading off / in applications which don't use more than two cores?

    You can't future proof in computing. Buy a balanced system now and it'll still be balanced in the future, but spending more now with the notion that it'll save you money in the long term is generally a false economy.
     
  14. Raves

    Gangster

    Joined: 2 Jul 2005

    Posts: 343

    Location: Canberra

    Quad. Even heard the wifey last night say "Baby wants a quad core".
     
  15. Marine-RX179

    Capodecina

    Joined: 6 Feb 2010

    Posts: 14,343

    Test kits: HD5870, 4GB Corsair 800Mhz DDR2, 4GB Corsair 1,600Mhz DDR3

    Crysis (DirectX 10, 64-Bit, High) at 1,680x1,050

    Core i3 [email protected] (stock speed)=18-42fps
    [email protected] (stock speed)=19-36fps
    Core i3 530 [email protected]=26-49fps
    E8400 [email protected] =27-48fps

    Handbrake H.264 Video Encoding
    Core i3 [email protected] (stock speed): 1,546, OC 3.5GHz: 1,823
    [email protected] (stock speed): 1,040, OC 4.25GHz: 1,542

    Multi-tasking
    Core i3 [email protected] (stock speed): 840, OC 3.5GHz: 1,009
    [email protected] (stock speed): 772, OC 4.25GHz: 992

    Cinebench R10
    Core i3 [email protected] (stock speed): 9,321, OC 3.5GHz: 10,645
    [email protected] (stock speed): 6,602, OC 4.25GHz: 9,870

    WPRIME 32M (seconds) (lower is better)
    Core i3 [email protected] (stock speed): 17,363 (17s), OC 3.5GHz: 14,320 (14s)
    [email protected] (stock speed): 29,047 (29s), OC 4.25GHz: 19,140 (19s)

    GIMP Image Editing
    Core i3 [email protected] (stock speed): 1,104, OC 3.5GHz: 1,399
    [email protected] (stock speed): 1,037, OC 4.25GHz: 1,558


    (source: Custom PC Issue 078 March 2010, p40-41)

    So out of all those tests, only in GIMP Image Editing that Core i3 530 [email protected] is a little slower than E8400 OC[email protected]...but bare in mind that it is 3.5GHz vs 4.25GHz. Also, if OC the Core i3 530 further, it will boost the frame rate of Crysis higher as well.
     
    Last edited: 22 Feb 2010
  16. feeddagoat

    Gangster

    Joined: 19 Nov 2008

    Posts: 412

    Location: carnmoney outside Belfast

    dont forget the i3/i5's are far more energy efficent too.
     
  17. Tiamat21

    Hitman

    Joined: 9 Dec 2009

    Posts: 760

    Location: North-East England

    I wish I had an i3 build, although I am a fan of the socket 775 boards :p
    But ama wait for thew new CPUs to come out this year to buy a new rig, hoping prices on the i3 and 5 to drop.

    But indeed i3s are cheap, easy and great to OC and are totally worth it.
     
  18. JonJ678

    Capodecina

    Joined: 22 Dec 2008

    Posts: 10,371

    Location: England

    I'm not sure those results are conclusive, but thank you for your response. The variations are within expected range for the effects of hyperthreading as far as I can tell. I'll have to see if I can find some benchmarks of the 530 with HT off.
     
  19. mame

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 16 Jul 2007

    Posts: 7,689

    Location: Stoke on Trent

    No point buying (which is different to keeping) a dual core now for gaming. It's not like you will be saving £100 is it.
     
  20. eddyc

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 13 Nov 2009

    Posts: 1,105

    +1 quad not that much more expensive these days.