?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Dual core vs. Quad core...

Decisions, decisions.

Well, I've priced out and spec'd out my new system.  With the exception of the processor, the rest of the system is set in stone.  It's just a question of cost versus performance now in my mind.

I can go with a Core 2 Duo E6600 processor, or a Core 2 Quad Q6600 processor.  The difference in price is $47, but the larger question is performance.  Do I want to stick with a dual-core system, knowing that it'll be ok for what I have planned for the use, or do I go ahead, bite the bullet and get a quad-core processor which will give me some improvement in what I'd like to do (computer graphics and such) but almost no difference in performance for gaming?

I'm not much of a gamer to start.  The (very) few games I do have run fine on my current rig, and I have almost no interest in many of the current SOTA games out there.  Nor am I interested in getting every last bit of performance out of the machine, I intend to run it at stock settings and not overclock or overdrive the machine at all.

So what do you folks think?  I'm more leaning towards quad-core, if simply because I know some of my apps will love it (like Lightwave, Vue Esprit, Daz, Shade 8...)

Comments

( 9 comments — Leave a comment )
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
mshollie
Feb. 9th, 2008 10:38 pm (UTC)
Oh, bite the bullet and go for the quad core. You'll be happier in the end. :)

Lik.
tal_greywolf
Feb. 10th, 2008 01:53 pm (UTC)
Oh, probably. Even with a dual core a large number of programs can't use both cores at once. But that's ok, eventually the programs have to catch up with the processors. Except for Microsoft Vista, that'll never catch up. *chuckle*
centauress
Feb. 10th, 2008 04:06 am (UTC)
Few things will run on all the cores still. So multicores are good for mutlitasking and running things like yes, Daz, Lightwave, etc. But really what makes those run faster is dual video cards.

At that level, not all the motherboards have good FSB speeds, but they've slowly been catching up to the Macs, Macs have been rated better than PC laptops for running... Windows.

I don't know what your price range is though.
tal_greywolf
Feb. 10th, 2008 01:52 pm (UTC)
Macs are nice, but if I go that route I'm either going with a Mac Mini or a Mac Pro. Laptops are nice, but they're not my style for long-term use, and the iMac is lovely but I'm not willing to give up my existing monitors at the moment. And even with the corporate discount on the Apple site, the price of the systems spec'd out to my requirements are close to double my budget.
moonfires
Feb. 10th, 2008 04:13 am (UTC)
The E6600 has been well superseded by the E6750. I'm not sure where you're getting your pricing from, but where I'm looking they'll sell me a E6750 for $40 less than a E6600, and it's 2.66Ghz and 1333FSB vs. 2.33 and 1066, and I believe discrete vs shared cache.

Either way you should be aware that by the end of the year, all new Intel processors will move from LGA775 to new sockets depending on features - LGA715/1160/or 1366, so don't count on the motherboard carrying you along very far.
tal_greywolf
Feb. 10th, 2008 01:46 pm (UTC)
I overlooked that chip more by accident. But the main issue remains that I'm not building a gamer's system, and a lot of the benchmarks for what I'm intending to do has the quad core chip running circles even around the E6750 chip and the faster FSB. It's a difference of rendering an image in 2:15 versus 4:50 for the E6750. The question remains, is spending $80 really worth it? (Not that the system right now is that expensive, I've got the price for the quad-core with a decent mb, memory and case down under $950 before rebates...)
doodlesthegreat
Feb. 10th, 2008 06:54 pm (UTC)
If the difference in price is small enough that you feel you'd save more time computing that it take to work to pay for it, go for the quad.
( 9 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

tal_greywolf
Tal Greywolf

Latest Month

February 2017
S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728    
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow