StarGateWars Forums

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

Colton wrote:

Earendil wrote: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 wrote:

Earendil wrote: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!"

Jack wrote: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.

Solus wrote:

Jack wrote: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

Jack wrote: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.

Jack wrote: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.

Kit-Fox wrote: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.