Re: Quad at 2.4 or Dual at 3.0 ?
- From: Paul <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 10:07:59 -0400
Talal Itani wrote:
Intel Quad at 2.4 GHz is priced the same as a Dual at 3.0 GHz. I will be using Windows XP. Which CPU should I get?
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/103582.html
"Q: My local computer store is selling high-end dual core computers for
about the same price as quad-core computers. The dual-core processor
seems to have a faster clock speed. Which would run my applications
faster?
A: Today, thanks to recent price cuts by Intel, the quad core Q6600 chip,
which consists of four processing cores, each running at 2.4 GHz, is
priced at about the same level as the more recently introduced e6850
dual-core chip, which features two processing cores, with each running
at 3.0 GHz. That means computers based on these chips should - all other
things being equal - cost about the same amount.
Which one you should buy should depend upon two things: how frequently
you run many processor-hungry applications at once and how much you want
to purchase a computer with the future in mind.
For single applications that are not specifically designed to take
advantage of multi-core processors - and that means most - then the
6850 will hold a slight speed advantage.
But for applications that are designed to see and use multiple cores
in a processor - and these should be right around the corner - the
Q6600 will easily win out."
Multimedia programs are the most likely to use four cores in a symmetric
fashion. Some multicore games, have exhibited an asymmetric loading pattern,
like 100%-30%-30%-30% loading pattern. (There are also some games that
have managed better than that, but they are lesser known titles.)
If your software is older, chances are it does not use multiple cores,
in which case the E6850 dual core 3GHz would be a better fit to the
application.
Sure, you can think in terms of the future if you want, and buy the
quad hoping that more software will use the four cores. But consider
how difficult it is to program for multicore processors, before
making that decision.
There are always benchmarks, that can show you how effective these
solutions are. This site has multiple benchmarking articles, but
don't present all the processors they've tested, in the same chart.
The chart would be too big. In this article, the E8400 is a dual
core at 3GHz, which is pretty close to benchmarking an E6850 dual core
at 3GHz. The E8400 is slightly faster than E6850 on some stuff.
http://techreport.com/articles.x/14573/8 (Compare E8400 to Q6600)
Paul
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Quad at 2.4 or Dual at 3.0 ?
- From: Talal Itani
- Re: Quad at 2.4 or Dual at 3.0 ?
- References:
- Quad at 2.4 or Dual at 3.0 ?
- From: Talal Itani
- Quad at 2.4 or Dual at 3.0 ?
- Prev by Date: Quad at 2.4 or Dual at 3.0 ?
- Next by Date: Re: Quad at 2.4 or Dual at 3.0 ?
- Previous by thread: Quad at 2.4 or Dual at 3.0 ?
- Next by thread: Re: Quad at 2.4 or Dual at 3.0 ?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
