Core 2 Duo Vs Core 2 Quad

[neo2810]

Just to clarify going back to your CPU choice. Although the 2x dual cores are faster individually than the 6600 quad's, collectively the quads are about 160% more powerful collectively. Your choice will depend on what you are using your PC for but bear in mind that most games now in development are being designed to use all 4 quad cores together in the game, each one driving a different element (dynamic weather, lighting effect, 3d rendering, etc) so playing those on quad core will be hugely improved over dual core. Very few apps need more than 2.4Ghz to run effectively so on the app front, you can run 4 apps at the same time with a quad core and they will not interfere with each other's CPU cycles (vs 2 apps on dual core).

It's really down to what you use your PC for, and whether you want to invest in a future technology or purchase for now with a view to upgrade to quad in future. I'm running a 6600 quad core and since I am a part time designer, it suits me to be able to have Flash, Lightroom, Photoshop and a browser open at the same time. Saying that, I've not yet found a game which does not run smoothly on full settings using the 6600. I've an 8800GTX Ultra GPU helping it out though.

[neo2810]

Should the side fan be sucking or blowing air? The front will draw air in and the then out the back so I presume the side should help draw heat out as well...

It depends if you want a bias towards inflow or exhaust but tests usually show that a single inflow with more exhaust will cool the box slightly more during intense usage, but poorly during idle whereas more intake and a single exhaust tends to be better overall with good cooling both during intense use and idle. I'd go for intake at front and sides, with exhaust at the back.

[broona]

.....

You're assuming 100% efficiency on all cores there though, and that never happens, as unfortunately each separate program doesn't latch on to an individual processor in a multi-core CPU, it just shares resources with the other running programs. Best case scenario's probably 50% with current software/coding, so unless you're doing intensive video/audio encoding most of the time, the dual core will be more than sufficient.

[rudey]

http://www.ebuyer.com/special/1640?ref=dotd
these cases plus psu looked good also

[mark1984]

Thanks for the replies and help guys, I've finally placed my order;

- EV Black MId Tower Gaming Case
- Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 3GHz 6MB Cache
- Asus P5KPL-AM iG31 Motherboard
- 4GB (2x2GB) Crucial 800Mhz RAM
- PowerColor HD 3850 Pro 512MB GDDR3 256bit Dual DVI TV Out PCI-E Graphics Card
- Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro Processor Cooler
- 2x Hiper 80mm Case Fans
- Seagate ST3500320AS 500GB SATA II 7200rpm *32MB Cache* Hard Drive
- LG GH20NS15 20X SATA DVD-RW/DL/RAM Drive
- CoolerMaster 600W Extreme Power PSU

I'll also be resusing my current;

- 500GB IDE Hard Drive
- 160GB SATA Hard Drive
- LG IDE DVD-RW Drive

Hopefully I should have it all ready by this weekend. Total cost was about £405 delivered... I think I should be able to sell my old one to a mate for about £160 - P4 3.2GHz, 2GB Crucial RAM, 300GB IDE Hard Drive plus ATI x850 Graphics card...

[neo2810]

You're assuming 100% efficiency on all cores there though, and that never happens, as unfortunately each separate program doesn't latch on to an individual processor in a multi-core CPU, it just shares resources with the other running programs. Best case scenario's probably 50% with current software/coding, so unless you're doing intensive video/audio encoding most of the time, the dual core will be more than sufficient.

That's only partially correct if you're referring to broad threading apps, which are slowly being replaced by fine-grained threading (albeit we have a long way to go). You're right in that with broad threading, only around 50% of each core can be utilised and that is the limitation we currently face, but already developers are using fine-grained threading for all the new releases and although this is very early on for quad cores (it's fairly efficient in dual cores already), the integration period should be fairly short.
Fine-grained threading allows the app to identify all the available processing power of each core and then directs the task towards the least utilised core. This way, the cores are fully utilised no matter how powerful they are.

My post above referred to the future benefit of quad cores, not current. I'm saying, if you want to future proof your system in anticipation of fine-grained apps becoming the mainstream (which they will, and soon) then quad core is your best choice. If you require the extra cpu power dual core will give you via broad threading now, then go for dual core and when fine-grain becomes efficient, upgrade.

[broona]

My post above referred to the future benefit of quad cores, not current. I'm saying, if you want to future proof your system in anticipation of fine-grained apps becoming the mainstream (which they will, and soon) then quad core is your best choice. If you require the extra cpu power dual core will give you via broad threading now, then go for dual core and when fine-grain becomes efficient, upgrade.

I agree, and if it were my money, I'd be buying the E8400 now, and then a quad core in 18 months time if software has caught up to hardware by then, and better, cheaper quads should be available then too, win, win!

[neo2810]

I agree, and if it were my money, I'd be buying the E8400 now, and then a quad core in 18 months time if software has caught up to hardware by then, and better, cheaper quads should be available then too, win, win!

Good philosophy...

[Over Carl]

Sorry for a little hijack but this thread's got me thinking. I bought a 2nd hand dell for my little bro a couple of weeks back. The thing has 2 x quad core xeons @ 2.00 GHz. He will use it for general internet/music/films/ms office. In addition he will be doing some entry level cad, and he's into music and will use it for some music making/editing.

Would we be better off selling the pair of xeons and getting a faster single one? Also I noticed where people said games will use one core for one thing, one for another etc. for a quad core. Would this mean 4 cores in this system wouldn't be utilised even on high end games?

[neo2810]

Would we be better off selling the pair of xeons and getting a faster single one?

Yes, and even better off selling the 2 Quads and getting an even faster Dual Core (but only until fine-grain threading becomes mainstream)...

Also I noticed where people said games will use one core for one thing, one for another etc. for a quad core. Would this mean 4 cores in this system wouldn't be utilised even on high end games?

It depends how your system recognises the 2 processors. Very few retail games and apps will utilise 8 cores, so you would be better off going for a single faster quad (or dual). There are a few games scheduled which use fine-grain threading and are designed to use all 4 cores at max capacity (I believe UT3 is the closest so far but Crysis and Bioshock use all 4 cores already, just not to the full capacity of them)...

[mark1984]

Got all the bits and have built the pc - I've installed windows vista 64-bit and what can I say, it runs like a dream... so smooth, not too loud either, so long as its not right next to your head, haha...

And I can recommend the 'PowerColor HD 3850 Pro 512MB GDDR3 256bit Dual DVI TV Out PCI-E Graphics Card' it runs Far Cry 2 at full graphics in Direct X 10...

Thanks for all the help and recommendations, they've helped to build a great PC...

Cheers guys

Mark

[Mr.James]

I'd go with Vista x64 edition as your OS too. That way you'll be able to acces all 4gb of your RAM rather than only the 3.4gb maximum that a 32gb OS can see.

[broona]

Got all the bits and have built the pc - I've installed windows vista 64-bit and what can I say, it runs like a dream

I'd go with Vista x64 edition as your OS too.

[Mr.James]

[rudey]

im running vista 64 ultimate
and radeon 4670 ddr3 ( £54.54 from ebuyer )
4gb ocz reaper ram
e6660 oc'd to 3.3ghz

awsome