The first processor you mentioned has two cores.
The second processer has four cores.
What are you planning on doing with your computer?
Printable View
The first processor you mentioned has two cores.
The second processer has four cores.
What are you planning on doing with your computer?
Which would you suggest if I was planning to put on some Barry White and make sweet tender love to my USB port?Quote:
Originally Posted by Murxidon
Well that's a very good question. I think you'd want a big hard drive to store Barry White's music in a high bitrate. The processor speed won't count much if that's all you want to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by TLM
I suggest the Macbook Air. It has one USB port and it's a very small package. A bit like your package, really.
Oh touché good sir. I only wish I had the mindset to retort to such a post, but alas, my wits are elsewhere on this fine sunday morning.
Maybe I shall ponder my great comeback over my afternoon tea.
Good day sir.
Nice thread jacking there, TLM.
Quad is better, duh.
Nice of you to mention so. And I concur, twas a very nice thread jacking.Quote:
Originally Posted by daroth
Good day.
Think about it xDQuote:
Originally Posted by Doom10320
4x2.4GHz
or
2x3.0GHz
what do you think is better? Also you have to check if you motherboard can handle it.
Then again some of the older games they you might wanna run don't support the quad core.
If you wanna run recent games, have more computer strength, and have power for the future, your choice should be a quad core.
If your doing less stuff, wanna run older games, and wanna do moderate gaming, do for the duo.
To bad, that it's just a common assumtious amateur mistake and actually doesn't at all work out that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darksin
The E8400 is better for gamers, the Q6600 is for people that do alot of stuff at the same time, but it's still good for gaming, but not better than the E8400.
It works for me this way:PQuote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
Would you people shut up if you know nothing about processors, thanks.
Duo-
This is good if you're going to be playing games. The core is faster and can overclock to a overall higher speed, and will handle games better. Multi-tasking will not be as easy though, and will slow you down. If you're going to play older games such as Oblivion, Rainbow Six, Halo, or whatever, I would get this. But you're talking about the 65nm not the 45nm. Go with the Wolfdale 45nm. Much better processor for gaming.
Quad-
Amazing for multi-tasking. I have the resource-hogging Vista inspirat brico pack, Itunes, MSN, Firefox with 8-10 tabs, DAP, two virus programs, and sometimes more running in the background while I play games such as Unreal Tournament 3, and I get no lag.
You can overclock these beasts a lot, because they don't take damage or burn out until reaching about 110 degrees, Celsius that is. Mine hit 120 the first time I started my computer up because my CPU fan was not installed right, and my fan speeds were turned way down. It shut down after hitting 130. (It was above 110 for about 1 minute, so no damage was taken, at all)
These are great for newer games. The problem is, most games don't support Quad cores. They will only use two, but you can still use all four to run more processes at once. Thus, if you overclock to 3.0ghz, you'll have the same gaming experience with 10 programs open, if not more, as you would with a 3.0ghz duo.
But in the future, more and more games will support quad cores. Unreal Tournament 3, Crysis, Command and Conquer, all of these are rumored to support quad cores. Most demonstrations of Crysis occur on a computer with the Q6600, since it is said to get higher frame rate. But some people don't believe it supports quad cores at all. Some say it barely does, and hardly makes a difference.
Age of Conan is going to support quad cores, and that'll make a huge difference. When comparisons between the Wolfdale 45nm and the Q6600 come out for Age of Conan, you'll see what I mean.
Overall: Get the Q6600. You can run more tasks in the background without giving up any frames off your frame rate, and in the future when games fully support quad cores it'll blow dual cores out of the water. For now you might be giving up a little performance, but I play high quality games and get perfect or near perfect frame rate with all my stuff open in the background, so the difference now is not even noticeable unless you go on Crysis maybe.
Aw,i wanted to say that!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
I'm also going with the Quad Core.The advantages are simple:Modern,future ready,saves 4x more power than a single core and is more powerful than Dual cores.
Plus,it's not just for multitasking.Some games fully support 4 cores already,atleast the new Unreal Tournament does (So i'm told).
PS:Please,shut it on how Dual cores are better for games.Sure,they might be slightly more adapted to old games but they'll quickly faint on new games.
If your into moding...
2P4's is like the best I've gotten out of a computer honestly.