Dual Core or Quad Core?

[TrickieTK]

While this seems like a simple question to me, where 4 > 2, I have been told by a few friends and read here and there on the internet that games cannot utilize more then the full potential of two cores. Which leads me to ask "should I get a higher clocked dual core" or a quad core? (ya, ideally I'd get a higher clocked quad core to be ready for the future but I build a new computer about every 18-24 months).

I build my rigs for gaming, I'm not monitoring a bunch of live feeds or running much more than a few major load programs at a time (Game, Vent, maybe Firefox or Steam).

Am I just wrong and should go with the quad core and just OC it the best I can?
Should I find a faster Dual core and OC it higher than I could get a quad core to?
In the next two years, will games catch up to being able to utilize the power of more than just the two cores I've been told about?

I'd appreciate any clarification anyone can give me. Thanks.

[Cilraaz]

I have personally noticed that a higher clocked dual core will outperform a lower clocked quad core. Some people have noticed the opposite. I think with the way WoW is programmed, it benefits more from clock speed than the extra 2 cores.

The big question is whether your computer would be a WoW only (or at least mainly WoW) system. If you are doing only (or mostly) WoW, a higher clocked dual core might be more useful. If you're doing almost anything else (or multi-tasking often), a quad core might better suit you.

Also, if you're bringing OC into the mix, then it depends on what you could OC the quad core to compared to what you could OC the dual core to.

The exception to the above rule would be the i7 (and possibly i5) line of CPUs. An i7 is efficient enough to outperform a (reasonably) higher clocked CPU.

[ßadrogue]

Quad core hands down. I just got a new PC 2 weeks ago with a Quad core (Phenom II) that is simply amazing, and theres no need to OC it really(3.4ghz stock). Two major improvements i noticed instantly are;

1. I can have an absolutely ridiculous amount of windows and games running at once and be able to tab between them instantly

2. Rendering in Sony Vegas is about 45% faster than my duo core, and recording WoW with fraps i only see about 15-20fps loss vs. my duo core where i would lose 30+fps

If money isn't an issue i'd go with an i7 though. I was on a $1200 budget so the Phenom II X4 was my only option coupled with HD 5870 GPU

[uofwone8@hotmail.com]

Depends on what you are looking for. For games 2 is generally equal to 4 IF they are in the same family and run at the same clock speed (A 3.0GHz Core 2 Duo will run the game the same as the 3.0GHz Core 2 Quad.) This is because most games (including WoW) don't push threads to any more than 2 cores.

As the other poster stated however, the new i5 and i7 lineup of processors are very fast and powerful, and one of them at a lower speed will still out perform a Core 2 processor at a higher speed. Again though, a dual core i5 at 3Ghz is going to perform the same as a quad core i5 at 3GHz.

Those extra two cores only come in useful with certain games, and even the games that DO use the extra cores don't usually do so very heavily. Unless you plan to be encoding/decoding a lot of heavy media, or if you plan on multitasking like CRAZY (20+ windows open at a time) I don't recommend the extra money for a quad core, especially in a gaming PC as it will never get fully utilized.

[TrickieTK]

At the moment I'm going to drop an Intel i5 2.66Ghz Quad core (hoping to hold it stable OC'd around 3.6-4.0) in it unless some new information comes up that really makes me look at seriously looking into OCing a dual core (to that promised land of 4.0+)

I don't only play WOW, at the moment I'm playing MW2 (damn you achievements) TF2 and GTA4 (I just cant get enough of GTA4 online) but ya, by no means will it be a WoW-exclusive. I also do quite a bit of sound editing and video editing in SONY ACID and VEGAS. PC and should be able to handle and out preform any new titles that come out in the foreseeable future (next two years~ish)

I've considered the i7 but it is pretty damn pricey.

[ßadrogue]

Yea if you're going to be playing games like GTA IV and MW2 then quad-core is the way to go. Also WoW does utilize quad-cores you just have to set the AffinityMask manually. I can't find the blue post but they've said that the extra cores will mainly process stuff like sound.

GET a quad-core trust me.......I can have GTA IV, Dragons Age: Origins, and WoW running at the same time and instantly tab between them. On my old 3.0ghz @ 3.5ghz duo core only having GTA IV and WoW running at the same would take 15-30 seconds to tab between them.

Multi-tasking is insane on the i7 and Phenom II X4's

[Cilraaz]

At the moment I'm going to drop an Intel i5 2.66Ghz Quad core (hoping to hold it stable OC'd around 3.6-4.0) in it unless some new information comes up that really makes me look at seriously looking into OCing a dual core (to that promised land of 4.0+)

I don't only play WOW, at the moment I'm playing MW2 (damn you achievements) TF2 and GTA4 (I just cant get enough of GTA4 online) but ya, by no means will it be a WoW-exclusive. I also do quite a bit of sound editing and video editing in SONY ACID and VEGAS. PC and should be able to handle and out preform any new titles that come out in the foreseeable future (next two years~ish)

I've considered the i7 but it is pretty damn pricey.

An i5 750 OC'd to the mid-3GHz to 4GHz range should outperform a dual core clocked to 4GHz. I think that's a good choice (especially considering your other computer activities).

[TrickieTK]

I suppose for the sake of argument for optimizing this whole debate I should throw up my prospective specs:

ASUS P7P55D-E LGA 1156 Motherboard
Intel Core i5-750 Quad Core (2.66Ghz Stock)
PNY GeForce 260GTX
G.Skill Ripjaws DDR3 1600 RAM (4GB)
600 Watt Power Supply
Western Digital Caviar Blue 320GB HD
Windows 7

This comes out to around $1033 (including case+DVDRW+additional case fans)

I've also considered

GIGABYTE GA-EX58-UD3R LGA 1366 Motherboard
Intel Core i7-920 Quad Core (2.66Ghz Stock)
PNY GeForce 260GTX
G.Skill Ripjaws DDR3 1600 RAM (4GB)
600 Watt Power Supply
Western Digital Caviar Blue 320GB HD
Windows 7

Which comes out to $1,150 (including case+DVDRW+additional case fans)

worth the extra $120?

[ßadrogue]

worth the extra $120?

Absolutely, especially if you're looking to future proof. But don't get me wrong when i say it's worth the extra $120, the i5 is a good processor as well. The 920 just has triple channel memory and will more than likely be able to achieve stable/higher OC speeds on air.

[TrickieTK]

Absolutely, especially if you're looking to future proof. But don't get me wrong when i say it's worth the extra $120, the i5 is a good processor as well. The 920 just has triple channel memory and will more than likely be able to achieve stable/higher OC speeds on air.

Ya I probably won't shell out cash for another liquid cooling set up until the summer when I'm working I don't really have the time or the extra coin for one right now.

Thanks everyone

[Cilraaz]

It is worth the extra cash, but remember that the i7 920 has triple channel memory, so running 4GB of RAM in any configuration will be locked down to dual channel. Upgrading to 6GB RAM would let it run in triple channel mode.

[TrickieTK]

It is worth the extra cash, but remember that the i7 920 has triple channel memory, so running 4GB of RAM in any configuration will be locked down to dual channel. Upgrading to 6GB RAM would let it run in triple channel mode.

Would it be better to get 3GB of RAM and run Triple channel? and then upgrade to 6 later? or get 4gb of ram, and run dual channel and upgrade to 6 later?

[Cilraaz]

Would it be better to get 3GB of RAM and run Triple channel? and then upgrade to 6 later? or get 4gb of ram, and run dual channel and upgrade to 6 later?

Personally, I'd probably get 4GB now and upgrade to 6GB later. The difference isn't enormous between dual and triple channel, but it's there. I think you'll have better performance from 4GB dual channel than 3GB triple channel at the moment. Although to be fair, I have no way to back that up.

[TrickieTK]

just looking at benchmarks confirms your last statement

3GB Triple Channel < 4GB Dual channel < 6GB Triple Channel

[chaud]

Don't throw away money on the 260GTX, buy a 5770 or 5850.

[zhaozhou]

Quad core, no doubt.

[Cilraaz]

Quad core, no doubt.

Answers like this are really useless, especially for WoW. A higher clocked dual core (say a 3.16GHz Core2Duo) will blow away a lower clocked quad core (say a 2.4GHz Core2Quad) in WoW performance. It's not always as cut and dry as "more cores are better".

Which processor is better for which use depends on things like:

• Usage - just WoW? lots of multitasking? video editing in the background? using fraps?
• Clock Speed - as stated above, which leads to...
• Budget - perhaps a person can afford a higher clocked dual core, but not a higher clocked quad core

On top of that, I'm sure people could come up with 20 more things to base their CPU choice off of. The quick and dirty answer is that there is no "best" CPU... only a best CPU for each user.

[TrickieTK]

Don't throw away money on the 260GTX, buy a 5770 or 5850.

Explain?

I've always heard there is AMD/Nvidia and Intel/ATI conflict, but my info could be outdated or misinterpreted by myself

[Bozkurt]

Explain?

I've always heard there is AMD/Nvidia and Intel/ATI conflict, but my info could be outdated or misinterpreted by myself

Don't listen to silly replies, get whichever you prefer, as both are on par. I would let the decision lie in future upgrading (getting an identical GPU as the first in order to have them Sli/Xfire, which really just depends on your motherboard.)

As for your dillema, Quad Core usually wins out. There are instances where dual-core with higher clock speeds edge over Quad cores (due to clock-speed difference). But in the logic of that argument Singles cores will probably do better then the dual cores (depends on its use really).

Assuming you are future proofing, go with quad, as more and more software companies are jumping on the bandwagon of multi-core threaded applications. Besides the obvious outcome, say you are running WoW, and decide to multitask and to other things, quad will grant you better performance in the total experience (running all apps at one time) versus the slight increase you get from a dual-core with a single app running.

[chaud]

Explain?

I've always heard there is AMD/Nvidia and Intel/ATI conflict, but my info could be outdated or misinterpreted by myself

Never correct, you can use whatever combo you want..
The 5770 is right around the performance level of the 260gtx, but has dx11, less power usage and heat output, and is by far the better choice. Not to mention it is slightly cheaper.