[Albuquerque]

This question has come up as many times as any of us can count, and it always seems to devolve into which one you like better as to what will get suggested.

I've been asked by three seperate people in PM that I post my answer from another thread (that will eventually get burried, just like all the rest) so that everyone can see it and perhaps it can be stickied somewhere. I'm not a mod, so I can't guarantee anything

Here goes:

The answer goes like this:

Dual core for gaming and pretty much any "normal" amount of multitasking anyone will do like IM + WMP + game + Skype + AV + other misc stuff like that.

Quad core for video/audio compressing, professional Adobe apps, knocking down world record synthetic benchmarks like 3DMark06 / Vantage, Folding / Seti'ing / any other distributed computing application, and ridiculously multitasking things like playing two games at once

Duals overclock better, cost less, apply less stress to the motherboard, use less power and put out less heat than a quad. Which means, unless you NEED the quad, then it makes far more sense to buy the dual.

That quote is reasonably accurate for the timeframe between the day this is posted to probably mid-2009. There are games that take advantage of quad cores, but they are in very small supply and may not be CPU bottlenecked enough to see a difference anyway.

And a few people will make sure to come in and add that your GPU is a more likely bottleneck than the CPU, which is yet again only a stronger argument for purchasing a cheaper, cooler, quieter dual core versus a quad.

[Stilletto]

That's good info for people, Albuquerque. I have struggled myself in the past with such a question, and came to the same conclusions. It is not neccessary or extremely advantageous to have 4 cores with everday usage. You won't be using all of them, and it's tricker for the layman to overclock.
For the other things you mention, the video editing and extreme multitasking, it would be a better fit, but that stuff would be better done on a dedicated PC anyhow, right? So, the choice for me for the forseable future would be Dual Core.

[Brolloks]

Alby, I would add one thing to the quad camp though, for benching 3DMARK, Vantage and a few others a quad gives your score such a lovely boost

[Albuquerque]

Originally Posted by Brolloks

Alby, I would add one thing to the quad camp though, for benching 3DMARK, Vantage and a few others a quad gives your score such a lovely boost

Absolutely right, along with a few others that I need to note such as distributed computing projects like FaH and SETI.

[Stilletto]

Originally Posted by Brolloks

Alby, I would add one thing to the quad camp though, for benching 3DMARK, Vantage and a few others a quad gives your score such a lovely boost

You're funny But also correct!

[Brandontw]

Good info, but quads are so much better for bragging rights....

[Rafterman223]

On dual vs. quad core, heres what I think.
Quad cores give an extra boost while running multiple high-task programs, like gaming ad video editing. They give more stability to mutiple processes and take advantage of a couple games, and possibly mroe to come out.

Dual cores are very good for individual tasks, but run more then one very well or not well depending on the exact cpu. They are great for running high-performance games and can be overclocked much more and have a higher original clock speed then dual cores. They take advantage of most current games.

I like dual cores currently because almost every good game takes advantage of them, I don't do tons of extreme video editing or torrenting or anything, and they run faster. Maybe in a couple years when more and more games take advantage of quad, when they become commonplace to the programs ran and support the hardware more; it will be better to get one for stability and better use. Until then, dual are they way to go in my opinion. Also, by the time quads are defintely worth it most computers nowadays will be replaced.

[prime81]

As time moves on, we saw single cores get surpassed by dualcores... the same will happen here with quads, just a matter of time. Also recently due to motherboard improvements it's really boiling down to price and not performance.

I would not be surprised to see dualcores become the low end cost efficient line, and quads become the next mainstream, which of course nehalem is already showing rumors of 8 cores.

[JonSimonzi]

The recent price drop on the E8500 is making this debate rage on in my head. Right when I thought I was 100% was going to get an X3230, they drop the E8500 like what, $75? Grr....

[karkas]

IMO you should include soemthing that comments that future apps/games may utilize quads more, so quads still may be a good choice if you don't plan on upgrading for a while.

[wingman99]

Duals are so cheep, that by the time you really need a quad to play games you could make a big jump and buy octet core platform

[prime81]

Quad... FTW

[diaz]

Just get a quad and get it over with. Trust me, you wont regret. I was going through the same dilema and got the Q6600. Glad I did. Works flawlessly.

-D

[myststix]

Get both....get a V8 (Dual Quad Core) Dual Processor AND Quad Core :>)

[Albuquerque]

Originally Posted by karkas

IMO you should include soemthing that comments that future apps/games may utilize quads more, so quads still may be a good choice if you don't plan on upgrading for a while.

They will, but how far away is that future? One year? Two years? Three years?

There are cars right now that run on Ethanol, and all cars may do it at some point in the future. Does that mean you should run out and buy an ethanol car right now?

If you bought one in Louisville, KY then you'd be driving to Indiana whenever you needed to fill up.

There will always be something better in the future, which is why "future-proofing" a computer makes very little sense in the grand scheme of things.

[OldOne]

Dual Core for me for the time being. Waiting for software to catch up with the quads. I am thinking E8500 for my first Intel build.

[Thermodynamic]

Originally Posted by Stilletto

That's good info for people, Albuquerque. I have struggled myself in the past with such a question, and came to the same conclusions. It is not neccessary or extremely advantageous to have 4 cores with everday usage. You won't be using all of them, and it's tricker for the layman to overclock.
For the other things you mention, the video editing and extreme multitasking, it would be a better fit, but that stuff would be better done on a dedicated PC anyhow, right? So, the choice for me for the forseable future would be Dual Core.

I came from a dual core environment (AMD X2) and found the Intel Quad Core to be such a superior performer. While most programs are made for one or two cores at best, that leaves the other cores available for every other system task imaginable. Doing virtual machines and 3D rendering, I can still do a full antivirus check on Vista64 (8GB) without slowing anything down. Especially after assigning processor affinity...

[OldSkool]

It's turning into more of a discussion AGAIN instead of being an answer. Should've been locked and stickied after the first post as that is the ONLY relevant information.

@ Prime - Nice SS.......you forgot one detail my friend, Not everyone can afford a QX9650 so it's not a viable solution or answer to the question. I'd really like to stop seeing all this dreaming and replace it with acceptance of the FACTS contained in the first post.

As far as gaming:
Everyone is all like "get a quad now, trust me". Guess what guys? By the time you see any benefit from your quad, we'll have 6 cores and maybe even 8! then what are you going to say? This makes no sense to me, I'm sorry. I've seen this topic beat to death endlessly by Quad fanboys all over the place that just cannot accept the fact that, currently, the dual is best for gaming and the quad is for video editing and other more intensive programs that will actually use the four cores. That is beyond argument and based in fact, not opinion, while, yes, everyone is entitled to their own. The fact however remain unchanged despite any delusions.

[nightelph]

To be honest the 'Search' function should be stickied.

Anyways, By the time quads are use throughout gaming, we'll be complaining that our octo core chips aren't being used..

[prime81]

Part of the reason quads have been so unsuccessful in the overclocking arena is due to motherboard limitations. Clocking an E8400/E8500 is the easiest overclocking I've ever done. With a quad you have 2 physical dies which means in the past you haven't been able to fine tune each cores voltages...the new p45 boards finally allow this.

Yes not everyone can afford an extreme CPU, but with the new steppings soon to be out and the new Q9650 in route the overclocking is still going to be very strong. Mine runs 4ghz with 1.34vcore.