Is quad-core really worth it?

C

c0re

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 15, 2007
Messages
210
According to Tom's Hardware cpu comparison chart, quad-core cpu's are marginally faster than the dual-core chips.

In the 3D Studio Max benchmark:

-Core2Extreme (QX9770) was top performer @ .33seconds, cost is over $1000 US
-Core2Quad (Q6600) came in 6th @ .47seconds, cost is about $270
-Core2Duo (E6850) came in 10th @ 1.09seconds, cost is about $270
-Core2Duo (E6750) came in 12th @ 1.16seconds, cost is about $190

In most other benchmarks, quadcore seems to be less than 5% faster as well. Is it worth the extra money to get quad-core or wait. Intel is coming out with new cpu's soon too, not sure how much prices will drop.
 
It depends on the application and how optimized it is for multi cores. Quad core will become better used over time.
Oh and the diff between 1.09min and 0.47min is not 5%, its more like 40%
 
Short Answer: No

Long Answer: Depends on how long you're planning to wait before your next upgrade, whether or not you run multiple Virtual machines, running any multimedia and editing apps, plays games such as Supreme Commander, etc etc. Depending on your answer to these questions, a quad-core may be worth it to you.
 
Long Answer: Depends on how long you're planning to wait before your next upgrade, whether or not you run multiple Virtual machines, running any multimedia and editing apps, plays games such as Supreme Commander, etc etc. Depending on your answer to these questions, a quad-core may be worth it to you.
Click to expand...

running Intel Celeron D 360 since dec. 2006, (hold the laughter please), i find it super-fast but then again, i'm not a heavy gamer. every 2-3 years i upgrade.
 
c0re said:
running Intel Celeron D 360 since dec. 2006, (hold the laughter please), i find it super-fast but then again, i'm not a heavy gamer. every 2-3 years i upgrade.
Click to expand...

If you keep a computer for that long, I would humbly advise to go quad core this time. 3 years from now quad core will be the standard.
 
Sr7 said:
Short answer: No

Long answer: No
Click to expand...

Short answer: Sometimes.

Long answer: There have been numerous threads discussing this issue, most of which I've read through. And guess what? I bought a quad core. Is it worth it for everyone? No. Some people will be better off just getting a dual core. However, there are considerations where it's completely worth it to get a quad, especially considering that a Q6600 is very reasonably priced for the amount of power that it has (stock) or can have (overclocked). It's up to the user to decide if something is "worth it" since that is a personal value judgement. I decided it was.
 
I have to make the decision on what to upgrade to, and for me a dual core wins over quad core. So the quad core is just not worth it for me.

I'd rather have a 4.0ghz OC dual core, than a 3.2ghz OC Quad core. Most likely you will be able to OC the Dual Core much higher than the quad core. All of my current applications currenty don't support quad core, I don't multitask anything higher than what a dual core can handle. I also don't see any new games or apps that will be out in the near future that would benefit from a quad core that I will actually be using.

So for me a higher clocked dual core is a better choice if price was not even an issue, add in the higher price for a quad core, and why the heck would I pay more money for a processor that will offer me less performance.
 
in my humble opinion,
1) considering the price that you pay, ~250
2) the performance you get
3) the future-"proofing" of a quad core

I would say a q6600 is a very smart choice, but thats my humble opinion :cool:
 
To me paying $250 for a processor that shows little difference and in some places is slower at gaming than a cheaper, higher clocked dual core seems rediculous currently. If a quad core makes a difference in a year or so I would buy a quad core then. Plus they will probably be a lot cheaper then as well. I would rather go with an e6850 based on those charts.

However if you need it for rendering or what have you then sure.
 
Chombo said:
To me paying $250 for a processor that shows little difference and in some places is slower at gaming than a cheaper, higher clocked dual core seems rediculous currently. If a quad core makes a difference in a year or so I would buy a quad core then. Plus they will probably be a lot cheaper then as well. I would rather go with an e6850 based on those charts.

However if you need it for rendering or what have you then sure.
Click to expand...

Even if a quad-core is not needed, I still wouldn't recommend getting the E6850 due to its unjustified price. $80 more than the E6750 for just 333Mhz? Thats bullshit right there.
 
Danny Bui said:
Even if a quad-core is not needed, I still wouldn't recommend getting the E6850 due to its unjustified price. $80 more than the E6750 for just 333Mhz? Thats bullshit right there.
Click to expand...

Okay, then I would recommend the e6750. Last time I was at newegg the q6600 and the e6850 were the same price.
 
Short answer: Nobody here is qualified to tell make a suggestion unless you tell us what your primary applications are going to be.
 
one thing to consider is that the duals dont really have a higher multiplyer than the quads, though the same multi is cheaper. So if you are FSB limited (and >3.6Ghz either way you are likely to be) so higher OCs are not a given with the duals.

Debating this myself. Keep the e4300 until nehalem, go for a wolfsdale until nehalem, or splurge on a yorkfield until nehalem. Those are really the only options....
 
GLSauron said:
one thing to consider is that the duals dont really have a higher multiplyer than the quads, though the same multi is cheaper. So if you are FSB limited (and >3.6Ghz either way you are likely to be) so higher OCs are not a given with the duals.

Debating this myself. Keep the e4300 until nehalem, go for a wolfsdale until nehalem, or splurge on a yorkfield until nehalem. Those are really the only options....
Click to expand...

from what I know if your a gamer, a 8800GTX or GTS isn't going to be strained by a e4300. I asked the same thing general response I got was it's not worth it. Sure the new 45nm OC hight but the 4mb extra cache isn't going to be super drastic. I'm saving my money. I mean look at vid cards now anyways. They seem to be doing most of the work so if your a gamer, you might as well just upgrade your card.
 
With prices at $275 for a Q6600 and $65 for a set of OCZ 2x2gb, I'd definitely go for a quad and 8gb of ram if I were building a comp now. :)
 
Glow said:
from what I know if your a gamer, a 8800GTX or GTS isn't going to be strained by a e4300. I asked the same thing general response I got was it's not worth it. Sure the new 45nm OC hight but the 4mb extra cache isn't going to be super drastic. I'm saving my money. I mean look at vid cards now anyways. They seem to be doing most of the work so if your a gamer, you might as well just upgrade your card.
Click to expand...
10MB of cache and I primarily play supreme commander. :eek:

But yeah, we cant answer for you. The OP needs to provide more info on what he'll be using it for.
 
Of course it's totally worth it. It's like owning 2 core 2 duo processor for the price of one. It's totally worth it for me since some applications that I use take full advantage of the 4 cores. Like what some people here have said. It's also depend on what applications you're be using.
 
Hell YES ! I went quad back at thanksgiving and will never go with anything less than quad again .. :D
 
BanDeodorant said:
With prices at $275 for a Q6600 and $65 for a set of OCZ 2x2gb, I'd definitely go for a quad and 8gb of ram if I were building a comp now. :)
Click to expand...

8 gigs of ram, now thats a total waste, Has anything been proven to run better on 4 gigs vs 2 gigs even?
 
eddie500 said:
8 gigs of ram, now thats a total waste, Has anything been proven to run better on 4 gigs vs 2 gigs even?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call 8gig of ram for under $200 is a waste. I call it a bargain. A waste is buying 4x1gig of ram when most motherboard can handle 8gig. Yes if you are buying a new computer now, I would say go with the 2x2gig of ram. Since I uses Maya and Photoshop, 4gig isn't even enough.
 
for rendering (graphics/video work)

YES

difference between 1minute and 40 second is huge especially over time


100 hours to 40
4 days to 1 and 2/3
 
I would say the extra 2 cores are worth it because they make you feel good about yourself. Whether you actually use them for any application is superfluous compared to the pride and satisfaction they give you just for knowing they're there :rolleyes:
 
I have a quadcore x3210 that cost $240. I run it 24/7 at 3.2, i use it for gaming and folding. it works great. I just ordered the e8400 for $219 shipped, I am hoping for 4Ghz on it. I have 2 pc's, so I will swap them around to see what works where..so my answer is get both!!!
 
Last night I went out drinking for my roommate's birthday and a friend I don't see too often came with us. We are both pretty big into computers, him even more so than myself, and I have to say I think it was the first time I had ever seen an advantage of a quad core personally.

He got to telling me about his setup on the way to the bar, prior to meeting up with any girls because we are both closet-nerds, and was telling me his C2D is running at 3.6ghz. He was so proud until I told him about my C2Q purchase and that I've had it at 3.6ghz on air. I felt like a superior nerd, it was great.

Two of my cores could pack up and go on vacation and I wouldn't know the difference. Besides that I think I may have only seen activity in them when stress testing. I will say it was worth the extra $100 at the time of purchase just to shove it in a friend's face though.
 
it's totally worth it if you commonly use applications that can take advantage of all four cores

in my case: video encoding (my god x264 is great...)
 
annaconda said:
Short Answer: Definately
Long Answer: Definately
Click to expand...

aggiestudd07 said:
in my humble opinion,
1) considering the price that you pay, ~250
2) the performance you get
3) the future-"proofing" of a quad core

I would say a q6600 is a very smart choice, but thats my humble opinion :cool:
Click to expand...


Agreed.Over time it'll proove a better investment then a dual core of like speed.More so if you dont upgrade very often.
 
Well, after waffling for 8 or 9 months, I finally ordered my new system from Cyberpower PC. I went with the Q6600 because the first game I am going to install is Supreme Commander which DOES take advantage of the 2 extra cores. I also keep my systems for several years, so I wanted to future proof as much as possible.

I will prolly be clocking it to about 3.0 Ghz or so. I will only be doing mild voltage bump and cooling with a Thermaltake V1 cooler. I did spring for the Mushkin Extreme memory with 4,4,4,12 timings.

Unless the OP posts what he will be doing with his system, it's hard to say if the Quad would be worth the money.

Don
 
Why didn't you just build it yourself?

It's not hard, at all...

:rolleyes:
 
difference between 1minute and 40 second is huge especially over time


100 hours to 40
4 days to 1 and 2/3
Click to expand...

60 seconds in 1 min not 100 seconds...:rolleyes: So it would be 60 hours to 40 hours or 4 days to 2 2/3 day.
 
Agreeing with Kyle here, but it entirely depends on your usage, and more so on things that benchmarks can't really accurately measure, like multitasking.
 
no the two point where different


in 100 hours/24 hours in a day is around 4 days
40 hours/24 hours in a day is arounf 1.667 days around 39%
in 1 minute so 60 seconds to 40 seconds is a decrease of 20 seconds around 33%
 
Why didn't you just build it yourself?

It's not hard, at all...
Click to expand...

I've built and updated most of my systems over the last 15 years myself, and have had to deal with a bunch of incompatibilty or just plain broke stuff in the past. I live about an hour from the good computer stores. So I would have had to mail order everything or spend quite a bit of time and gas driving to the stores. Returns are a hassle, and mail order returns can be downright nasty or impossible if you are shopping by price. I know, so I try not to do that any more.

This way I get it after it after it has been tested, and it is guaranteed for 3 years, with 24/7 tech support. I didn't figure it out exactly, but the price from Cyberpower PC was resonable too. I would have spent at least a grand, maybe more to get the parts in my system. I am going to shop around for 2-4 more gig of ram though since I am going to dual boot Vista and XP.

I will upgrade my second system in a few months, and I will do that one myself. That one is just my Juke/pron/bitorrent box, so it is not so cutting edge. I will only need a Mobo, cpu, memory, and Video, so it won't be as big a deal as a complete system. Hmm, I will have to shop for a MOBO that can run my Q6600, and I can then put one of the new Quads in my main system. Hehehehe

Don
 
no the two point where different


in 100 hours/24 hours in a day is around 4 days
40 hours/24 hours in a day is arounf 1.667 days around 39%
in 1 minute so 60 seconds to 40 seconds is a decrease of 20 seconds around 33%
Click to expand...

So you owe me 50 cents, thats almost a dollar, and I owe you a quater which is almost a dime, so just give me 90 cents and we'll call it even....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top