I have a question to pose for you all. Quad core processors can be had fairly cheaply nowadays (I believe you can pick up the Intel Core 2 Quad 6600 for about $280), but most programs can only take advantage of two cores at the moment. Dual core games include Company of Heroes, Call of Duty 2, TES4 Oblivion, and many others.

Dual core processors are both faster and cheaper than their quad core counterparts, so would it be fair to say that it would be wiser to choose the faster dual core today rather than a slower quad core? I fully believe that once Phenom (rather the first couple revisions) and the next generation of Intel processors come out that a quad core will be a justifiable purchase with all the programs supporting quad cores at that point, but at this point in time Intel quad cores are too expensive and won't offer enough performance for titles a few years down the line.

Unlike the 8800 gpu's which were necessary to churn out sufficient framerates in games like FEAR and Oblivion compared to GeForce 7xxx and Radeon 1xxx cards, quad core processors came out before any programs could really utilize four cores. This whole post is a bit more jumbled than my usual topic, but I hope you can understand the point.

I would not go out on a limb to say dual cores are faster. Depending on what application the quad is being used for, it can be substantially faster than a dual core processor. From what I understand, there are already games that have quad core support (Correct me if I am wrong, but Supreme Commander is one.) Also, a quad would benifit a somebody working with encoding and the like.

Also, I can understand people buying quads now because some people consider a CPU a long term investment, and yes, a quad is definitely more future-insured than a dual core.

If I were to buy now, I would buy a quad, I could at least get it to 3.2ghz (Which would be an average overclock with decent aftermarket cooling) and at that point, running games that only support two cores would still work very well.

I got a question as well,


Why the hell do you need a Quad C ore processor?! I got a Duo Core and I'm perfectly happy the speed is perfect! If I would ever upgrade, It'd be to a 3.0GHZ Duo core, What's the point in having a Quad core?

Thats like same as a old geezer saying.
I LIKE MY 10 YEAR OLD PIECE 0 SHIT COMP AND ALL I EVER USE IT WITH IS WRITING STUFF. LIKE, WHATS THE POINT IN HAVING ALL THOSE GOOD STUFF?

Some people do. There is definitely a market for it, and it only makes sense that Intel and AMD are taking advantage of it.
But the thing is, you can't do everything as well on a dual core as you can a quad core, regardless of whether you feel like you don't need it, a lot of people do need/want it and could put a use to having quad cores instead of dual cores. People would still be using 486's if they could.

Also, if you have not noticed, software is getting increasingly demanding as hardware does. Take Operating systems for example. Compare the system requirements from XP to Vista.

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?

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).

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?

No actually it's not and I don't appreciate a stupid spam responce.

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.

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.


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..?


Nowhere, but even then, an 8ghz pentium 4 is junk anyway.


http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3038&p=8
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.

No, it's actually what you're thinking, just in layman's terms.
And if you work with 3d programs and digital editting, you should know that better performance gets your work done faster, with better results. It works perfect when especially you're working on something highly detailed and, large arts.

Plus, opening a file with 50+ files is a pain with older processors.
If you see no use for it right now, at least you'll see use for it later.

I love how ignorant you guys are.
Faster 16GHz processors with 256 cores isn't going to be the future of computing.
The future of computing is quantum computing kthnx.

Sounds like one of the supercomputers over at NASA.. Imagine runing a game on one of those. XD. 1000 fps FTW?

Because you will go insane and play forever until you die...

oh... read quote too

Because you would consume hundreds or thousands of dollars in electricity costs playing on a supercomputer.

I have a feeling these super computer don't use x86 processors either..

Nah the new super computer is PS3 xD

Anyways, you know you could tell which proccess to use with a core on a dual or tri or quad core?

I think it would make even more sense to have dual quad cores on the same motherboard! With 16gb of ram.

Same thing as I said before: You CAN'T say "this is going to be the future". That might be true for a time span of a few years, if at all. If there is anything that could be "the future", then something that nobody believes to play any major role in the future (who was the one who said that there will be a market for 7-8 computers in the USA at most?).
Do you understand what quantum computing is about, anyways? I don't, and all I can say is that it is far too complex to make any predictions now.


Wth do you want to say?
I haven't heard of any "tri-cores" yet, and I doubt I ever will. Though probably possible, it would most likely waste some resources anyways.
Yes, you can tell which process makes best use of which type of processor (if that's what you were saying). But really important is only how many processors it supportsa at max, and this can best be told by the programmers of that program.
Why should I have a dual and a quad core on my board? If I add the money I spent for the dual core to the money of the quad, I can easily get a quad clocked as high as the dual core, and thus I wouldn't need the dual core at all.
More RAM is pretty much always a good thing (except for your electricity bill) - as long as you can use it. for 16GB of RAM might need a 64bit System.

There will always be a market for traditional microprocessors for encryption purposes against quantum computer chips. I think "quantum computing" sounds a lot more mysterious than it actually is. Basically, quantum processors are expected to do in a matter of minutes some tasks which take current supercomputers years to do, but they are at least a decade away. Here's a quote from wikipedia:


Other than some very specific algorithms, quantum computers don't give large benefits, so your statement of "quantum computers are the future" appears to be false, at least at this time.

ummmm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law

k thx, death/spine