Dual or Quad?

[~Odin~]

quad....because well its better...this way you wont need to upgrade for a while

[Colton]

Simple as that, duel or quad core and express your reasoning

I say a "Duel" processor would be better..

Reasoning: With that, I could say to someone, "I challenge you to my processor!"

[Colton]

To be honest I was just pointing out that it's spelled "Dual" and not "Duel", with some humor thrown in

I wouldn't have the slightest clue on which would actually be better, since I'm running a 7 year old comp at the moment

[~[ Greased Gerbil ]~]

Simple as that, duel or quad core and express your reasoning

I say a "Duel" processor would be better..

Reasoning: With that, I could say to someone, "I challenge you to my processor!"

LoL... I've had a processor duel before. Ah, the good times. Throwing 386SXs across the room at my friend.

I got hit in the face once. Those Socket7 pins can really shred up some face. At least it doesn't hurt is bad as an ISA modem; you could lose a nose to one of them.

[ramen07]

If I had the money, I'd go with quad. Basic reasoning, I'm good for the long run. Unless they actually make memristors, in which case I'd wait till the 32- and 64-core computers come out.

[~Odin~]

Simple as that, duel or quad core and express your reasoning

I say a "Duel" processor would be better..

Reasoning: With that, I could say to someone, "I challenge you to my processor!"

im with him ^_^

i guess if ur strapped down by cash get an awesome dual....with that being said a 4some is always better then dual ^_^

[Colton]

@Ramen, what's a memristor? o_O

[MrBiggMan66]

get a dual core. It will likely run just as fast, if not faster than a quad for you. and it will cost much less. Are you building a gaming computer?

[Solus]

Earendil it depends entirely upon what you are doing and the processors you are looking at.

Are you going to be doing a lot of movie editing and encoding or are you going to be gaming more?

If you are going to be doing things like movie editing, encoding etc then a quad core would be best. However, as far as I know, most PC games for the most part are still not made for quad core processors. They are only just now catching up with dual cores. So if the dual you're looking at has "faster" cores then the quad, then I would suggest the dual. If they are the same, or the quad is faster then the dual, then you might as well get the quad. But don't expect a huge benefit from the extra 2 cores, like I said, most games weren't designed to utilize them. Though that may have changed now.

for the most part, this is true, most games/programs havent utilised quad cores. but they are nearing it. there are a few which try to use them but they are only a very select few.

dual cores have been utilised successfully now, so quad may not be far off...

also: i suggest looking into 64 bit operating systems. in particular i do suggest vista 64 bit, but not for my regular reasons. Purely because 64 bit gives you the opportunity to use more than 3.2gb of Ram, and WinXP x64 was an atrocious faliure in this respect.

~soul

[MrBiggMan66]

Earendil it depends entirely upon what you are doing and the processors you are looking at.

Are you going to be doing a lot of movie editing and encoding or are you going to be gaming more?

If you are going to be doing things like movie editing, encoding etc then a quad core would be best. However, as far as I know, most PC games for the most part are still not made for quad core processors. They are only just now catching up with dual cores. So if the dual you're looking at has "faster" cores then the quad, then I would suggest the dual. If they are the same, or the quad is faster then the dual, then you might as well get the quad. But don't expect a huge benefit from the extra 2 cores, like I said, most games weren't designed to utilize them. Though that may have changed now.

for the most part, this is true, most games/programs havent utilised quad cores. but they are nearing it. there are a few which try to use them but they are only a very select few.

dual cores have been utilised successfully now, so quad may not be far off...

also: i suggest looking into 64 bit operating systems. in particular i do suggest vista 64 bit, but not for my regular reasons. Purely because 64 bit gives you the opportunity to use more than 3.2gb of Ram, and WinXP x64 was an atrocious faliure in this respect.

~soul

I agree with the posters above. also, for gaming the cpu isn't the bottleneck. A faster cpu helps, but A more powerful graphics card will yeald better results and a better bang for your buck. As far as gaming is concerned anyways. so for gaming go dual core, high-end graphics. and don't forget a cooling system.

Also HD movies and such don't require a quad core to view either. a decent graphics card should have no problem playing HD content.

[DucknDive]

I got both, E6400 and a Q6600.

Depending if you plan on over clocking it. If you keeping it stock got for quad.

If you plan on oc'ing it then dual.

My dual out performs my quad hands down, in terms of video encoding, un-compressing of large zip files etc - raw processing power.

E6400 stock 2.13Ghz mine @ 3.45Ghz with 4Gb of Corsair XMS-2 ram
Q6600 stock 2.40Ghz mine running stock, way to many heat probs aswell as others oc'ing it, both machines running same ram with 4-4-4-12 timings and std voltage to .............

So in short if you got the cash buy quad, if not buy a dual and overclock the nutz out of it

[DucknDive]

Solus reminded me about the 64bit stuff. Don't even bother with a 32bit OS, it's utterly foolish in this day and age. You're going to need more then 3.2GB of RAM and 32bit wont allow.

Mine a 32bit and show my 4Gb fine after they released sp1 ?

I however, disagree with Solus about getting Vista 64bit. Buying Vista now with the Win7 release imminent is retarded. Just acquire XP and ride it out till Win7 is released later in the summer, then buy the 64bit version.

I agree, got win7 business on my lappy and i do like more than vista, so would also say hold out for it if you can.

[DucknDive]

The only thing that puts me off 64bit os is at first they not supported enough.

When vista first came out i got 64bit ver, and the head ache i got, no drivers for sound card, no drivers for gpu, no drivers for anything.

I just think 32bit is better supported ? Or that platform certainly gets the patchs first

[Kit-Fox]

Whoever said that the q6600 2.4Ghz quad isnt very O'Cable is a fool, you can reach speed of about 3Ghz on its stock cooler for gods sake without any kind of heat issues unless you've got a tiny case.

With a good aftermarket air cooler i'd expect you to be able to reach 3.4/3.6Ghz with it and with water cooling some have even reached 4.2Ghz so its a very o'cable cpu especially the 'power saving' model.

[DucknDive]

Whoever said that the q6600 2.4Ghz quad isnt very O'Cable is a fool, you can reach speed of about 3Ghz on its stock cooler for gods sake without any kind of heat issues unless you've got a tiny case.

With a good aftermarket air cooler i'd expect you to be able to reach 3.4/3.6Ghz with it and with water cooling some have even reached 4.2Ghz so its a very o'cable cpu especially the 'power saving' model.

I didnt say that, i said i had heat issues with it, plus depending on what your using it for plays apart.

eg. for playing games like COD, its causes problems(Granted not all games), however for for video encoding and such its fine.

Also worth pointing out that no 2 chips will oc to the same level, if your lucky you get a good one.

Plus you need a decent motherboard, so dont just base it on the chip itself, like any computer, its only as good as its weakest link.

And for the record i have 1 of these in both machines Zalmans CNPS9500A LED but i do have a smaller case for one of them, which does impact alot on airflow.

Best advice do some research before spending any cash, i did