Core 2 due or Core 2 quad??? Can’t make up my mind

Hi all

What’s the best CPU these days to buy:

Core 2 due / Core 2 quad

Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 3.16GHz 6MB / Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4GHz 8MB


These 2 CPU almost cost the same


I have it hard to make a choice myself?



thx

Core 2 Quad - My opinion

JustGadgets said:

Core 2 Quad - My opinion

Click to expand...

But wont it be just like a 2.4GHz P4 in windows?

The Quad is better in performance

Core 2 duo is a 2 core processor and the quad is a 4 core processor. So basically, duo has 2 physical processors built onto one chip and the quad has 4 physical processors built onto the chip.

The Core2Quad has two Core2Duo processors on the processor die. It was criticised as not being a "true" quad core, because it is just two processors they put on one. I have the Q6600 Core2Quad, I would recommend quad core over the duo.

but from I can understand, a dual cpu's mhz speed in split into 2, where a quads cpu's speed will be split into 4.

4000mhz cpu =
Quad = 4 x 1000mhz
Dual = 2 x 2000mhz

soooo, if a program or OS doesnt utilize the multi cores, you will have less speed!

Ok so if the Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4GHz 8MB is better then the Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 3.16GHz 6MB

Why do they almost cost the same?

Get the quad

Depends if the programs you are running are able to utilize all cores. If you running games that can't stream to more than one core, get the duo.

more and more games are going to support multi core. Quad FTW.

kevinswan007 said:

but from I can understand, a dual cpu's mhz speed in split into 2, where a quads cpu's speed will be split into 4.

4000mhz cpu =
Quad = 4 x 1000mhz
Dual = 2 x 2000mhz

soooo, if a program or OS doesnt utilize the multi cores, you will have less speed!

Click to expand...

Mmm Doesnt it work like this:
E8500 = 2 x 3.16Ghz
Q6600 = 4 x 2.4ghz

SlyFly said:

Mmm Doesnt it work like this:
E8500 = 2 x 3.16Ghz
Q6600 = 4 x 2.4ghz

Click to expand...

AFAIK thats the way to do it.

(otherwise the q6600 is slower than a P4 3GHz!)

ok, from what i've gathered over my research(i'm in the same boat) is this:
core2duo-these are faster NOW, simply because they have more ghz... many applications only use 1 core and some use 2 but they still don't use them fully(there's only so much you can process). In this case, the e8500 is a 45nm processor and this means it uses less power, the transistors are more efficient and this processor has a 1333mhz fsb...
the core2quad on the other hand has 4 cores, that's all good and well, but unless you photo edit, render etc, you either not going to use programs that use all 4 cores or you aint gonna find a difference... it also as 4 cores with a 65nm design, which means more heat, power consumed and i think it's about 2.9 times the size of the e8500(the actual chip)

the e8500 also overclocks like a demon and you can reach 4.0ghz with a decent motherboard...

another problem that seems to have come about is the fact that only the newer motherboards are supporting the new 45nm processors... this means that if your motherboard does currently support it, then a bios update is in order which surely will piss some people off...

If you find yourself using many programs at once(say you like googling, playing music, running anti virus check etc) then the quad core will pull a fast one and show an improved performance...

However, if we take games for eg, they are the fastest developing software on the market. yet we still find that their aint many of them that use all 4 cores(I think crysis is one of the few that attempts to) most just use 2 cores because the game developers feel as though there's not real improvements over the dual cores as of yet... and with graphics cards(look @ Nvidia Cuda) taking over the physics and other processes there's no need to as all that's left to process is some AI and the basic game...

I strongly believe that dual cores are fine for now, and will last another 2 years, but in say a years time, if you feel you lacking the power you want, then you could go out and get a Q9700 or something for what you paying now for a e8500

regards scotty

yes, a fast MHz on dual core will be faster than say a slower MHz, on 4 core.

but the thing is, more and more apps will use more cores in the coming months, and then the 4 core will be the better option.

but if you think about it, the 4 core won't have a problem NOW, even if it IS slower on single core apps.

think about the future!

Go Future. Go Quad.

I would go with the core2duo. it may be years before applications utilize the four cores by which time you are ready to upgrade anyway

Keeper said:

yes, a fast MHz on dual core will be faster than say a slower MHz, on 4 core.

but the thing is, more and more apps will use more cores in the coming months, and then the 4 core will be the better option.

but if you think about it, the 4 core won't have a problem NOW, even if it IS slower on single core apps.

think about the future!

Click to expand...

yes, i agree it is a tough decision, but it depends on what the guy is going to use the processor for, and if say, he feels as though the dual core isn;t giving him the power he wants in a years time, then he can get hold of a new Q9xxx processor for cheap... at least with the dual core you know that it performs better in single core apps and dual core apps(which have only really started arrive over the past year or so) and because Nehalem is being released soon, the current LGA775 processors will drop in price quite well...

D-Boy said:

Ok so if the Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4GHz 8MB is better then the Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 3.16GHz 6MB

Why do they almost cost the same?

Click to expand...

Some people just don't always get it.

First off, if you are considering the C2Duo, get the E8400, not the E8500- 160MHz per core slower and you save a crap load of money. (Work out price/GHz on the two and you will see).

The Core 2 Quad is currently only fully usable on the newest rendering programs. A game or two might support it... sort of. Windows can't fully utilise it yet, although Linux does enjoy the 4 cores.

Comparing the E8500 and the Q6600, there are the following points:
E8500 uses a lot less power (45nm vs Q6600s 65nm)
E8500=2x3.16GHz vs Q6600 4x2.4GHz- This is where the crunch comes in. If you can't use all four cores you are screwed since you sit with a 2.4GHz instead of a 3.16GHz processor.
E8500 1333FSB vs Q6600's 1066FSB. "Fixable" by overclocking but I'm not taking O/C into consideration when looking at a CPU
--If you turn the E8400/8500 into a Quad Core, it costs R10'000 atm.

I have physically compared the Core 2 Duo against the Core 2 Quad in games and applications (some rendering, current calculations programs- mathematical/scientific) and find the Core 2 Duo tends to be faster. Especially the E84/500 vs the Q6600, although I like both. Maybe wait for the new Intel to be launched later this month?

cerebus said:

I would go with the core2duo. it may be years before applications utilize the four cores by which time you are ready to upgrade anyway

Click to expand...

Intel have reached the edges of a silicon wall, and the only way to go forward is more cores. most software will support it soon, because they HAVE TO!
They already have a 12-core setup too, will try to find a vid...