CPU Question - Faster Dual Core or Slower Quad Core?

**Consultant** · 12-22-08, 08:22 AM

Which is better or would give a bigger performance bump - a 2.66 Core 2 Quad or a 3.33 Core 2 Duo?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115131

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115054

They are the same price, so I am confused.

This is, of course, assuming I keep my same motherboard wich is a 775 socket.

I'll be upgrading to Vista, have an 8800 GTS and play 99% Valve/Steam games.

Thanks.

**w4jchosen** · 12-22-08, 09:26 AM

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php

Quad Core scores better.

**Consultant** · 12-22-08, 09:30 AM

interesting.

Thank you!

**w4jchosen** · 12-22-08, 09:41 AM

Yea I thought so too. Just on the surface I would have said to go with the E8600.

Of course if you had about $1100 or so you could get that one at the top

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_look...00+%40+3.33GHz

**SapiensErus** · 12-22-08, 10:37 AM

Those benchmarks are misleading.

The number of cores depends on the tasks.

Games do not need multiple cores; they are coded in such a way that multi-threading is not as possible as with some other applications, such as video editing. Applications like 3dSMax and Adobe Premier run better on a slower quad core than a faster dual core.

So it depends what you are doing.
Here is some old information that is till good and so are the links:

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

Originally Posted by Blue_Thunder27

Go look at the processors that he listed.

e6850 $279
q6600 $279

Same price but not comparable. the e6850 is a faster processor with a faster bus.

Originally Posted by Blue_Thunder27

q6600 vs e6850: 3dmark06 Benchmark

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_20...=871&chart=419

From somebody who did the research.

Sure it gets more 3dmarks, it can run more processes at once. SLI systems get more 3dmarks too, even though framerates can decrease from using SLI. Go find out how it performs running a single threaded application, say, um, like a game.

Ok, so its like this: it has four workers, and the other has two who are faster. Sure if I have 8 jobs to do, I would rather have the four slightly slower workers, but when I have one or two jobs to do, the two win out. The game only needs one worker. So should you give it one slower worker, or one faster worker?

3dMarks are nice when saying "my system pwns yours" but they dont really describe how well that system will run a single threaded game with xfire in the background.

I will openly admit that the Quad core processors will smash the Dual cores when running a whole bunch of things at one time, or running truly multi threaded apps. But I doubt anyone here is doing that. They are playing games and running Xfire or doing something equivocal.

Here is the e6850 outperforming the q6600 at a game
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page15.html

Here it is outperforming quads at yet another game:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page14.html

and another
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page16.html

and another, top of the chart.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page17.html

Quad core won this one, UT 2004. but only by a hair
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page18.html

Oh snap, E6850 back on top at yet another game
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page19.html

And again at Itunes, E6850 on the top
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page20.html

ooops, q6600 winning for HDTV playback.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page21.html

How about Divx transcoding? no quads on top here...
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page22.html

E6850 on top again, this time DVD cloning
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page23.html

Ahh.. finally, the Q6600 gets a leg up in MPEG2 to H.264 encoding
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page24.html

And again the Q6600 is on top at Adobe Premier
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page25.html

Oh but with pinnacle studio 11 plus the E6850 comes back out on top of the Q6600
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page26.html

And again on AVG AV
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page27.html

And again for winrar
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page28.html

Top of the list again for PPT to PDF
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page29.html

Shucks, quad cores have it for Deep Fritz 10 Chess
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page30.html

Here it is again at the top of the chart rendering in CS3
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page31.html

Q6600 takes it for 3DS Max
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page32.html

And Qcores win again at Cinema 4d
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page33.html

And we already know it (the Q6600) wins 3dmark06
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page34.html

Q6600 wins PCmark05 CPU but not Mem where the E6850 tops the list
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page35.html

Q6600 wins for some CPU multithread MFLOP tests
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page36.html

E6850 Better at floating point memory operations
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page37.html

And better at integer memory operations
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page37.html

Another multithreaded CPU test goes to the Q6600
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page38.html

and again to the Q6600
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page38.html

Awwww.. how cute, they tie for Windows Experience - Memory at 5.9
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page39.html

Rats, my E6850 was beat fro Windows Experience - CPU
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page39.html

and finally, at the end of the CPU comparison:

"If you are about to purchase a new platform, we recommend going for one of the latest chipsets (Intel P35, G33, Nvidia nForce 6 series) and probably one of those FSB1333 processors. " -from tomshardware

So, out of 25 comparisons the Quad cores take 6. Note they beat the dual cores at multi-threaded applications and battery style CPU tests. Note also that the Dual core won out on not only more tests, but tests of commonly used applications and games. Note also, that the toms review recommends the 1333 bus CPUs; the dual cores.

And I could keep doing this for a lot of different applications and games. So, do you wanna get your frag on as hard as you can? or do you wanna say "I got 1000 more 3d marks!"

Are you running multi threaded software all the time or playing games and surfing the net?

How is that for research? 2 more cents.

Read the whole thread here: http://www.texasteamplayers.com/index.php?topic=27279.0

The thread may be dead on one year old, but the core of the argument still holds. But they are all fast enough that you will kick butt regardless.

More cores gets higher benchmarks, but when it comes to games, a single core running fast is all you need.

**WileECyte** · 12-22-08, 10:41 AM

Quad-cores definitely dominate the synthetic benchmarks and processes that are multi-processor aware, but most games have very rudimentary multi-CPU support. It's getting better... but right now... 2 faster cores > 4 slower cores in gaming.

**investigater** · 12-22-08, 12:12 PM

I love my E6850 3.0GHz!! Had it for almost a year now. No OC'ing needed. On a board that has 8 gigs of 1066MHz RAM and a 8800GTS 512. Never went to the quad cores because like mentioned above.... no games have really utilized the multi core processors yet. Yet being the key word. I still have another year or so with this machine before I upgrade to a DDR3 board with SLI and a socket for the i7's but I am content where I am at with what I have. Money well spent I must say.

I would like to get the E8600 for the fact it has a bigger L2 Cache and is 45nm but shit, don't try and fix what isn't broken right.

**jason_jinx** · 12-22-08, 12:21 PM

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

Those benchmarks are misleading.

The number of cores depends on the tasks.

Games do not need multiple cores; they are coded in such a way that multi-threading is not as possible as with some other applications, such as video editing. Applications like 3dSMax and Adobe Premier run better on a slower quad core than a faster dual core.

So it depends what you are doing.
Here is some old information that is till good and so are the links:

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

Originally Posted by Blue_Thunder27

Go look at the processors that he listed.

e6850 $279
q6600 $279

Same price but not comparable. the e6850 is a faster processor with a faster bus.

Originally Posted by Blue_Thunder27

q6600 vs e6850: 3dmark06 Benchmark

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_20...=871&chart=419

From somebody who did the research.

Sure it gets more 3dmarks, it can run more processes at once. SLI systems get more 3dmarks too, even though framerates can decrease from using SLI. Go find out how it performs running a single threaded application, say, um, like a game.

Ok, so its like this: it has four workers, and the other has two who are faster. Sure if I have 8 jobs to do, I would rather have the four slightly slower workers, but when I have one or two jobs to do, the two win out. The game only needs one worker. So should you give it one slower worker, or one faster worker?

3dMarks are nice when saying "my system pwns yours" but they dont really describe how well that system will run a single threaded game with xfire in the background.

I will openly admit that the Quad core processors will smash the Dual cores when running a whole bunch of things at one time, or running truly multi threaded apps. But I doubt anyone here is doing that. They are playing games and running Xfire or doing something equivocal.

Here is the e6850 outperforming the q6600 at a game
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page15.html

Here it is outperforming quads at yet another game:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page14.html

and another
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page16.html

and another, top of the chart.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page17.html

Quad core won this one, UT 2004. but only by a hair
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page18.html

Oh snap, E6850 back on top at yet another game
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page19.html

And again at Itunes, E6850 on the top
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page20.html

ooops, q6600 winning for HDTV playback.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page21.html

How about Divx transcoding? no quads on top here...
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page22.html

E6850 on top again, this time DVD cloning
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page23.html

Ahh.. finally, the Q6600 gets a leg up in MPEG2 to H.264 encoding
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page24.html

And again the Q6600 is on top at Adobe Premier
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page25.html

Oh but with pinnacle studio 11 plus the E6850 comes back out on top of the Q6600
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page26.html

And again on AVG AV
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page27.html

And again for winrar
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page28.html

Top of the list again for PPT to PDF
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page29.html

Shucks, quad cores have it for Deep Fritz 10 Chess
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page30.html

Here it is again at the top of the chart rendering in CS3
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page31.html

Q6600 takes it for 3DS Max
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page32.html

And Qcores win again at Cinema 4d
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page33.html

And we already know it (the Q6600) wins 3dmark06
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page34.html

Q6600 wins PCmark05 CPU but not Mem where the E6850 tops the list
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page35.html

Q6600 wins for some CPU multithread MFLOP tests
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page36.html

E6850 Better at floating point memory operations
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page37.html

And better at integer memory operations
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page37.html

Another multithreaded CPU test goes to the Q6600
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page38.html

and again to the Q6600
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page38.html

Awwww.. how cute, they tie for Windows Experience - Memory at 5.9
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page39.html

Rats, my E6850 was beat fro Windows Experience - CPU
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page39.html

and finally, at the end of the CPU comparison:

"If you are about to purchase a new platform, we recommend going for one of the latest chipsets (Intel P35, G33, Nvidia nForce 6 series) and probably one of those FSB1333 processors. " -from tomshardware

So, out of 25 comparisons the Quad cores take 6. Note they beat the dual cores at multi-threaded applications and battery style CPU tests. Note also that the Dual core won out on not only more tests, but tests of commonly used applications and games. Note also, that the toms review recommends the 1333 bus CPUs; the dual cores.

And I could keep doing this for a lot of different applications and games. So, do you wanna get your frag on as hard as you can? or do you wanna say "I got 1000 more 3d marks!"

Are you running multi threaded software all the time or playing games and surfing the net?

How is that for research? 2 more cents.

Read the whole thread here: http://www.texasteamplayers.com/index.php?topic=27279.0

The thread may be dead on one year old, but the core of the argument still holds. But they are all fast enough that you will kick butt regardless.

More cores gets higher benchmarks, but when it comes to games, a single core running fast is all you need.

LOL
Soy likes to live in the past and state that games do not use multi cores.

You better check the updates news for Ut3, L4d, Tf2, Crysis, and the COD series.

More and more games are utilizing multi core now more than ever before.

Soy maybe you would have some edge 6 months ago but if he is going to upgrade now and more and more games are going multi why the hell buy a dual core?

The smart move would to be future proof and get the quad.

Soy I dont know what all those math symbols are in your sig are but when it comes to hardware seems you cannot do the math.

**619summon** · 12-22-08, 12:54 PM

im runnin E8400 now and its fine.

but my next build will be quad, just nice having/being able to run your game and backround programs with plenty of head room.

if you building for now, a cheaper dual core will work. if you building for the future then get the biggest quad you can afford.

**flame** · 12-22-08, 12:57 PM

I have the Q9450 it runs great for everything I play. I run crysis on high no problems, the steam games are a breeze. From what I have read the Q9400 can easily overclock much higher. Mine is stock so I dont know first hand on OC. Like jason said, games are starting to take advantage of all 4 cores. No you wont always need all four cores but I run itunes with the internet downloading etc. If your like many you multi task. It's the future so thats why I went with it.