If the Dual Core is stronger PER CORE, and the stuff it is used for supports only up to two cores, a dual core will own a quad core, since 2 cores won't be used at all.
If you are using several programs simultaneously, a quad should be able to boost performance. Also, for stuff like Graphics and 3DModeling/Rendering, quads can be really great.
I wonder why not all games that already support 2 cores don't support 4 or more as well. I haven't looked into the details programming-wise yet, but it shouldn't be too hard to adjust the number of threads to the number of cores available...
I will get a quad when upgrading my comp soon, or even something with more cores. And my next project will hopefully support a wide range of cores. Why not run a game on a supercomputer with some ten thousand cores/processors?
A)
Performance between dual cores and quad cores are the same, clock for clock. Dual cores cost less per clock than quads, and run cooler/use less power. Intel's Kentsfield is just two dual cores put together on one die. There is hardly any difference besides that.
Quad cores are relatively new, but regardless, it's harder than just adjusting the number of threads to the number of cores availible, I believe.
Quote from ClansAreForGays
I woulln't get more than 2, with each processor you add on, efficiency is reduced.
Like if you have 3.0ghz then you won't be operating like a 6.0ghz, its more like 5.2, and it just gets worse as you add more on. I think a quad(each 3.0) would be something like 7.5, and after 4 it gets REALLY bad. This is why Cell processors are going to be the future(doesn't run into this interference).
Processors do not work like that at all. You don't have a 5.2ghz processor if you have a dual core 3ghz processor. It doesn't add up like that at all. How do you figure cell processors are going to be the future..?
NOTHING you have heard of until today is "going to be the future". 2 years ago, what did you expect to be the future?
Anyways, where would I get a 8GHz single core that stays alive without liquid nitrogen cooling?
Nowhere, but even then, an 8ghz pentium 4 is junk anyway.
I work with 3d programs and multitask a lot, but I still don't see the use for a Quad core, I mean if you can get a 3.0DUO you should be happy... I haven't seen on program my 2.13DUo has a problem running. I'm sure in the next 2-4 years there might come a time to get one, but right now I think people should not waste the extra money and just get a fast DUO.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3038&p=8 If you look at the average, quad-core gains an advantage over dual-core over all of our benchmarks, but if you look at the tests themselves you'll see some trends. Encoding and 3D manipulation benchmarks have the quad-core CPU clearly ahead, while general usage and gaming benchmarks mostly favor the higher clocked dual-core E6850.
If you don't see the use for quad core, then you should look at the benchmark results between a 2.4ghz quad core and a 3.0ghz dual core.
Think of it as similar to the transition between single cores and dual cores. Similar things were said, but now try playing Crysis with respectable frames on a single core.
None.