Dual Core or Quad Core?

Dual Core or Quad Core?

  • Dual Core

    Votes: 42 42.0%

  • Quad Core

    Votes: 58 58.0%
  • Total voters
    100
D

DoomRulz

Gawd
Joined
Apr 17, 2006
Messages
512
I was browsing on NCIX just now, and I noticed the QX6700 & Q6600. I was wondering...if someone were to build a brand-new Conroe rig, should he take the older X6800 over the QX700, or E6600 over Q6600?

Let's assume this person is looking to overclock, primarily use the PC for gaming, with some multimedia tasks on the side, and look into future-proofing the machine. For me, quad-core would make more sense, but somehow I think I'm alone in that belief.

Thoughts?
 
voted quad

quad is overkill right now for media/games, but if you want any sort of future proofness in the dynamic world of computers, rediculous overkill is the only way to go
 
There's no such thing as future proof.

Dual is the best value for overclocking, gaming, and light multimedia.
 
If future proofing is of any concern, then the obvious answer is quad core.
 
How does spending more money now on something that won't get used... make it future proof?

A Quad Q6600 is $1,000 Cdn, a QX6700 is $1,250 Cdn.

An E6600, also running at 2.4Ghz is $399 Cdn.

The E6600 would be, in my humble opinion, be more future proof...

Because it would be cushioned from the harsh realities of the future BY A GIANT WAD OF CASH.
 
I agree that the e6600 is more futureproof as it allows you to hold onto funds that you can spend in another 6 -12 months to buy the next greatest cpu; but a silly question if money is not a concern.
 
If money wasn't a concern, somone wouldn't be asking for opinions here, they'd just have a top tier builder deliver a gold plated, diamond encrusted blingbox. ;)
 
I was just curious as to what people's thoughts were. If you guys think this thread is pointless, then don't bother replying. ;)
 
dekruyter said:
I agree that the e6600 is more futureproof as it allows you to hold onto funds that you can spend in another 6 -12 months to buy the next greatest cpu; but a silly question if money is not a concern.
Click to expand...

So I'm guessing what some of you mean is E6600 is the way to go b/c you get what you pay for, whereas the Q6600 is too expensive for its own good right now. Yes?
 
DoomRulz said:
So I'm guessing what some of you mean is E6600 is the way to go b/c you get what you pay for, whereas the Q6600 is too expensive for its own good right now. Yes?
Click to expand...
Yeah I would agree with this.

Since you were talking about X6800s and QX6700s in the OP I just thought you meant money is no object. But Intel's "Extreme" chips are really a bad value.
 
"Nice computer you have there!"

Thanks, I built it myself - let me show you the insides... That's a high end dual core E6600 cpu there, and it's seriously overclocked.

"Wow, cool. What's that accessory there? I've never seen that before"

That? Oh - that. That's for futureproofing. It's a giant wad of cash.

"COOOOOOOL!"
 
If you were choosing from high end processors.... I would go for Quad Core.

But if you want to save money. Buy a middle of the pack or low end core 2 duo and overclock and wait for quad cores to drop in price.
 
Zinn said:
Yeah I would agree with this.

Since you were talking about X6800s and QX6700s in the OP I just thought you meant money is no object. But Intel's "Extreme" chips are really a bad value.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm thinking of building a Conroe rig in a few months, and I'm just exploring what's available...$$ won't be an issue, but I was curious as to what people thought.

Why do you say Intel's "Extreme" chips are of bad value?
 
Paying for quad core now is stupid unless you do some major folding or video editing

When quad core is needed they will either have reduced in price or be clocked so high that it makes current Quad core CPUs obsolete.

Only buy now what you need now there is no such thing as future proofing when it comes to CPUs or GPUs

if some one could offer me a 5Ghz Core CPU with just a single Core on the CPU I would take it right now as it would simply destroy any current Dual or Quad core CPU.
 
DoomRulz said:
Why do you say Intel's "Extreme" chips are of bad value?
Click to expand...
because they are the flagship processors. once you pass a certain price point on the CPU, you're really getting into the land of diminishing returns and inflated egos. intels E6600 can be overclocked far beyond an X6800 and it's a third of a price. hell, my E6300 is running faster than the X6800 and it cost me $150.

the E6700 runs at 2.66 ghz and it costs ~$500 (around there)
the X6800 runs just 266 mhz more at 2.9 ghz and it costs close to a thousand dollars
why spend an extra $500 on a chip that is only slightly faster? that's why I say it's a bad value.

another thing to consider--flagship parts depreciate in value much more quickly than midrange parts. as soon as a successor is released to take its place at the top of the product lineup, your resale value goes kaput.
 
i voted quad but now that i think about it...i would have just gone with an e6400 dual core for like $200 then spent the money later on a penryn quad core next year.
 
Jay_oasis said:
Paying for quad core now is stupid unless you do some major folding or video editing

When quad core is needed they will either have reduced in price or be clocked so high that it makes current Quad core CPUs obsolete.

Only buy now what you need now there is no such thing as future proofing when it comes to CPUs or GPUs

if some one could offer me a 5Ghz Core CPU with just a single Core on the CPU I would take it right now as it would simply destroy any current Dual or Quad core CPU.
Click to expand...

Words of wisdom here ^^^

This is just a rehash of the single-core vs dual-core argument in the early days of dual-cores. People who brought dual-core then for future-proofing and multi-core gaming are probably gonna be a bit disappointed. Multi-core gaming is not really here yet. And by the time it gets here, quad-core will be mainstream and the games will be optimized for quad-cores.

Folding and major video editing would be the only reason I would do quad-core. For gaming and other tasks, a cheap C2D is sufficient.
 
Future proofing is a waste here I think.

CPU prices are always going down. You can buy an e6600 for like $350 now, and then buy a quad core in 1.5-2 years for nearly the same price, and save a net of $600 without ever really sacrificing any performance.
 
Another relative point in this discussion is that whatever mobo you get for either, will support a the quad as well. Thats why I went with the e6700 on the 680i EVGA. It was a little more, but half of the quad, and later when prices drop, I can always just get a new cpu.
 
markintosh13 said:
How does spending more money now on something that won't get used... make it future proof?

A Quad Q6600 is $1,000 Cdn, a QX6700 is $1,250 Cdn.

An E6600, also running at 2.4Ghz is $399 Cdn.

The E6600 would be, in my humble opinion, be more future proof...

Because it would be cushioned from the harsh realities of the future BY A GIANT WAD OF CASH.
Click to expand...

I agree, voted dual. I actually just ordered a e6600 along with some new parts. Best value imo
 
Quad if i had the cash but happy with happy with my e6400 since mostly internet, emails and lots of PORN!:D
 
I say dual is best for now, because if you try to "future proof", when it becomes necessary to go quad core, the quad cores available will most probably be way better than the ones now
 
When choosing between the X6800 and the QX6700 I'd get the latter. Between the E6600 and Q6600, I would get the former.

If I had all options open, I would get the cheapest core2duo now and consider upgrading to quad in the next quarter.
 
As much as i wanted the quad just to say i had one. I couldn't justify the price
 
IMO, it's much better to budget $150/year on a CPU upgrade than it is to spend $500 or $600 for "future proofing." If the past is any indication, next year's $150 processor will outperform today's $600 model.
 
I voted quad because I am going to be getting my Q6600 in a few days. Weeee!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top