The Quad Core "Advantage"?, Quad vs Dual core in the REAL world
|
|
 Jan 3 2008, 08:39 PM
Return to original view | Post
#1
|
 
Elite
14,576 posts Joined: May 2006 From: Sarawak   
|
One thing about technology is that you shouldn't buy tech for future-proofing as it will be obsolete before you know it....
Dual-core at the moment unless you are doing heavy multitasking, using video/audio apps or apps that can take advantage of all cores e.g. folding...... For games, there are none yet that fully utilizes all 4 cores, except maybe crysis.... |
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 3 2008, 10:08 PM
Return to original view | Post
#2
|
|
Elite
14,576 posts Joined: May 2006 From: Sarawak
|
QUOTE(t3chn0m4nc3r @ Jan 3 2008, 08:52 PM) i can't agree wif this statement cuz future-proof got lotz of type... like i recommended 1 of my fren to get this spec last July: Wow! That's future proof? Intel Celeron 420 1.6GHz Abit IN9 32X Max WiFi(fire dragon) 2GB Corsair XMS26400 C4 Forsa 8600GT 160GB Seagate SATA HDD Panasonic SATA DVD burner this spec is not very high end... but it's kinda future proof cuz it's upgradable easily and don necesarily need to spend a lot... this Celeron OC to 2.8GHz Super_PI gt 28s n 3Dmark06 got 5.8k... not a bad investment... and i think can consider future proof also...    Like you said, "lotz of type of future-proof"...... guess your definition and mine is different....  |
|
|
Jan 4 2008, 10:46 AM
Return to original view | Post
#3
|
|
Elite
14,576 posts Joined: May 2006 From: Sarawak
|
No doubt more cores are better. For better future-proofing, definitely current quads would be better.
The issue here is that for current usage, is dual- or quad- more appropriate? No question about this if you're using apps that taxes heavily on all 4 cores. However, what about the majority, the average consumers that run BT, anti-virus, playing games, surfing, etc. For them, I shoudl think dual-core is the appropriate number of cores AT THE MOMENT. Quads yes, especially when the Q9450 is introduced!!  |
|
|
Jan 4 2008, 05:36 PM
Return to original view | Post
#4
|
|
Elite
14,576 posts Joined: May 2006 From: Sarawak
|
QUOTE(drgadgets @ Jan 4 2008, 02:33 PM) I do agree with kmarc statement that future-proofing should not be ur no 1 concern when buying tech. However, consider this: A new E6750 costs RM635 while a new Q6600 costs Rm935(latest price from C-zone). So it seems that the premium for the extra 2 cores isn't that high, right(about 50% more expensive)? And when multi-threading takes off, the quad cores have a potential for twice the speed of the dual-cores. An example of what I mean. Now using E6750 as it is enough for current usage. Q6600 would be better if you can utilize all 4 cores but more expensive.Next upgrade for me would be Penryn Yorkfield Q9450 which is cooler, slightly faster clock-for-clock and have newer features such as SSE4.1. At that time, hopefully quad utilization is more in terms of programs/games/apps. Can then sell off my E6750..... who wants to buy?  Edit : So my strategy is, go for the best bang for buck hardware appropriate at that moment in time, upgrade when necessary while selling off the older hardware..... Of course, I'll loose some money on selling but I guess that's the price I have to pay..... This post has been edited by kmarc: Jan 4 2008, 05:39 PM |
|
|
Jan 5 2008, 07:29 AM
Return to original view | Post
#5
|
|
Elite
14,576 posts Joined: May 2006 From: Sarawak
|
QUOTE(t3chn0m4nc3r @ Jan 4 2008, 07:43 PM) u should had compared E2160 and E6750 at 3.5GHz b4 paying for it... RM600+ vs RM300+ but the performance not really noticable... At a high vcore for the E2160? No thanks...... Risk:benefit ratio not acceptable for me.... not to mention the heat..... |
|
|
Jan 5 2008, 12:03 PM
Return to original view | Post
#6
|
|
Elite
14,576 posts Joined: May 2006 From: Sarawak
|
QUOTE(sukhoi37 @ Jan 5 2008, 09:41 AM) the winner is clear. If you look at that table, quad is good for video and 3D rendering but lose out on games and office apps. Disadvantage is quad is about rm300 more expensive and it is hotter, requiring better cooling for equivalent overclocks..... In the end, it depends on what apps you use....... |
|
|
Jan 8 2008, 07:08 AM
Return to original view | Post
#7
|
|
Elite
14,576 posts Joined: May 2006 From: Sarawak
|
QUOTE(drgadgets @ Jan 8 2008, 05:45 AM) I thought u wanted the most bang for ur buck? Definitely best bang for buck but not with increased risk of damage. If need to RMA, then no more bang for buck wor.....  A E2160 isn't that ex anyway. Even if it fails in 1/2 years time(very short for a proc) u can always used the money u save to get a newer proc   Anyway, next CPU I'm aiming for - Q9450 Added on January 8, 2008, 7:09 am QUOTE(t3chn0m4nc3r @ Jan 7 2008, 12:20 AM) haiya... juz a few months or weeks only ma... if nex year than no need to wait lo... Really? If that is the case, then the proc would be excellent. However, I think a lot of users had to set high vcore to get high OC, IINM..... err... not really high... it's still below 1.4V... and temp below 60C... no risks... unless u use crappy Mobo and crappy PSU... if not everything should be fine... tat's wat slightly more pricey mobos are for...  This post has been edited by kmarc: Jan 8 2008, 07:09 AM |
| Change to: |  0.0533sec
 1.14
 7 queries
 GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 18th December 2025 - 03:15 PM |
Quote