The Notebook Review forums were hosted by TechTarget, who shut down them down on January 31, 2022. This static read-only archive was pulled by NBR forum users between January 20 and January 31, 2022, in an effort to make sure that the valuable technical information that had been posted on the forums is preserved. For current discussions, many NBR forum users moved over to NotebookTalk.net after the shutdown.
True. But back then, the Pentium D and X2 architectures were not nearly as efficient as the Core 2 architecture. Even the X4s are not as efficient today as the C2. There was more room for argument then. With the Core 2 in its final model before being phased out, there is no argument that the quad is better than the dual, for multithreaded apps.
You'll have to research specific applications where clock vs cores matters. IE, My X9100 @ 3.5GHz is far faster in Crysis than a QX9300 at 2.9GHz, but FSX, World in Conflict, GTA IV, and many others, prefer the multithreaded environment and perform much better.
My 2.0 Ghz Q9000 Quad plays games tested so far extremely well on my NP8662. When I am done installing and testing some things, I will show a more comprehensive list of results but so far I have played Wolverine Chronicles at 1680 X 1050 resolution with all settings on max at a constant 62+ fps, Brothers In Arms - Hells Highway everything at max settings on 1680 X 1050 at an excellent frame rate. I noticed all cores were being used in Wolverine Chronicles but this was just a very quick test since I have only just got the laptop today.
You will see little to no difference from proc with upped res (unless for some reason you are using software rendering), but where you will see improvement from a better CPU is in more complex games with lots going on logically, in other words, lots of AI routines to run, lots of physics (except for games that use PhysX if you have an Nvidia card), etc. Games like Supreme Commander get a big boost from a good proc.
This is why the Q9000, even though a slow 2.0 Ghz, can still provide good performance in games that are GPU dependent as well as those that are multi threaded so you don't lose out. I have seen so many forum posts from people not wanting to get the Q9000 due to the 2.0 Ghz clock.
I have configured Riva Tuner to show the percentage usage of each CPU core during game play and I notice that Brothers In Arms Hells Highway for example is using something like CPU 0 - 37%, CPU 1 - 70%, CPU 2 - 56%, CPU 3 - 25% and is running at 72+ fps at 1680 X 1050 on all high. I do wonder if that game is more GPU dependent too though.
Crysis was the only game in my testing that showed any fps increase with a higher overclock on my quad, its a poorly coded game, but even with the Q9000 FPS was in playable frame rates. most other games were already way past 60fps even at 2ghz before I overclocked and showed little or no gains when overclocked all the way to 2.7ghz signifying that 2ghz is all the cpu power that was required.
Any machine with a quad is going to be a performance machine and should have a method for overclocking, the Asus W90 as you can see does 2.3ghz with its own built in overclocking software.
For rendering video even at stock 2ghz I have the power of a 4ghz dual core, when I use SetFSB to overclock to 2.75ghz I would need a 5.5ghz dual core to keep up with the power of the quad! That same multi core power is now being used for games, you would have to be stuck in the past if you think dual is better, more than one W90 owner already upgraded the X1 model that came with a dual to a quad core instead.
True: If the thread said whats better a faster cpu or faster gpu.
But the thread is about dual vs quad so we are only debating the cpu portion, and in that debate my vote goes for quad for numerous reasons, with proof & personal experience to back it up.
Well the OP is asking a pretty vague question. yes, a Quad is better, but he gives us no GPU coupling, no budget, no nothing really to make any kind of comparisons. On pure performance and future-proofing, a Quad is better. Any game that's CPU dependent or CPU heavy is usually optimized for multi-core so Quad will advantage those games.
However, many games aren't very CPU demanding at all either and still in the future there wil be games which aren't heavily CPU dependent.
for most games I will agree, but with alot of RTS's, most notably DOW II, I had to turn down settings AND I could not play with more than one computer, otherwise it would be so slow and almost unplayable, this was on a 2.4Ghz Core2 Quad.
On my i7 system, yes the graphics cards it better (3850 to 4870) but now I can play with 5 computers with no lag of any kind, if I still had the Core2 Quad but a 4870 it would still lag with 5 computers.
BUT
for the most part your right, it is about the GPU, except in RTS's and a few exceptional games.
Higher res+more graphic effects+PhysX hardware accelleration on Nvidia cards=need more GPU
Better AI+more physics (except for PhysX with Nvidia)+more actors in world=more CPU
Sure, Quad cores and 6+ GB of RAM is great if you play against 7 comps in a huge map on Supreme Commander. There is your scenario where Quads are better. Otherwise save your money and buy yourself a steak dinner.
For an enthusiast such as yourself, you'd think it'd be obvious. And you're comparing a dual core to a quad core. But anyway...
Sli 9800M, CF 4870, it doesn't matter, if you've got only a 2ghz core duo you're severely limiting your GPU head room. But if you've got a mid range card, Ati or Nvidia, doesn't matter, and a 2ghz core duo and you want to waste $700 on a 4ghz CPU for a stressful GPU game, you're not going to see a difference. Brand. Does. Not. Matter.
Well. duo core is absolutely fine at this stage regarding gaming.
But you guys are true that quad core is future proof but from what I have read is quad core should be good if your in 3D Modelling.
Yes, its also true that quad core gets heated up but thats because the cooling system in a laptop isn't as future proof yet. They need to enhance the cooling system more in terms of its design to let the airflow more accurately.
But, if you ask that is quad core good for 15"inch, 16"inch, 17"inch laptop good, I would say a big no to it. I would recommend a 18"inch since the thermal cooling design would be better and more larger then the others. As, for gaming with quad core you might notice only about 2-3fps gain unless as said already if its a cpu intensive game or not. Also, what are the chance of such cpu intensive games may be 1 is to every hundred today. Like GTA 4 which is a really multicore cpu intensive game then thats were your duo core will fail and quad core will come handy.
But, from what I see is wait and watch what happens by this year end as Intels new mobile both quad and duo are about to be released based on calpella platform.
With a quad core, you get all of the benefits of a Core 2 Duo plus the benefits of the Quad in gaming, applications and general multi tasking. Enough said.
I would prefer a quad core laptop and a quad core desktop.
The quad when doing a dual core task is not really producing much extra heat over the dual or using extra power, the other two cores are going ot idle, the only time its going to use more is when all 4 cores are in use and reallly busy, but while that may drain battery faster, what ever you were doing is also going to get done faster!
Plus not like you would be doing any cpu intensive tasks on battery.
Well, for your information.....If you go through my above post and can read what I have written in english clearly...No where I mentioned I do cpu intensive task on laptop and use laptop in battery mode. Watch what you are saying here pal.
I said quad core is good for desktop and in laptop it will get heated up if you utilize all four core...which indirectly will lead to underclocking of your VGA Adapter........
First read clearly then post what you want get it.
Actually, in a very small set of circumstances, brand (of GPU) does matter. If you have a game that uses PhysX, Nvidia has PhysX hardware accelleration, while ATI does not. Therefore, in that situation, GPU brand does in fact make a difference.
Your horrible at comprehension, i spoke about my personal opinion it had no bearing on what you said except what I had quoted (thus the reason for quotes), but now your spuddering on about more nonsense.
My cpu is going to make my gpu downclock? Sorry but no... lol
He probably means that higher TDP in CPU will lead to a higher temp overall in the notebook chassis, which limits the ability for the GPU heatsink to dissipate heat. Hence the GPU will downclock sooner (temperature threshold).
I have never seen a laptop with the cpu & gpu on the same cooling circuit each one has a dedicated heatsink, and if your cpu causes your gpu to downlclock from heat (and it takes A LOT of heat to make a gpu downclock) your unit is not property designed or defective.
I own a laptop with dual gpu's and a quad core and even overclocked to 2.7ghz on the quad and maxxed out via prime95 or orthose it doesnt effect my gpu temps, maybe 1c if it was lucky.
Still even on the dell I doubt the cpu could cause the gpu to throttle, and what dell comes with a quad? Does the quad still share the same heat circuit?
Nah Vicious, I totally agree with you. Most Core 2 Quads have the same TDP as that of most Core 2 Duos, so it's a really ignorant assumption to think a quad will cause your GPU to downclock where a dual core won't.
Setup: 2 NP8662's, 4GB ram, one quad 2.0, one duo 2.66
GTA IV benchmark app, 1680x1050 res, all settings high
Results:
Quad - 31FPS, with 76% utilization
Duo - 33FPS, with 98% utilization
Quad has room for more cycles, but the duo gets more FPS.
Bottom line, both are great. Everyone who keeps saying "if you want to play GTA, get the quad", well, thats wrong. The faster duo handles GTA slightly better, but is at full utilization.
Maybe some point in the future an app will use all 4 cores at 100%, but for now, and in GTA IV, the duo is just as good as the slower clocked quad.
If thats correct, why does the faster 2.66 get 2 more FPS? Also, why if I run background apps that use my cpu, does the bench drop a few fps?
If traffic, pedestians, etc, tax the cpu more, then say the duo drops a few fps, and the quad doesnt. Then theyd still have a very close fps.
Find me any evidence FPS wise that the quad does significantly better, where they arent within 1-2 fps and I'll believe you. But all evidence points to the two being the same, and each having some advantages. For gaming, the duo wins in FPS from actual tests.
Do a FRAPS test, 10 minutes doing mayhem on the same island. It will average out and the quad will win, even if only 2ghz. My duo taps out 100% and dips to the teens in the thickest areas like algonquin. A quad will fair much better.
And I forgot to say I benchmark 40 FPS. But in game I dip as low as ~18. A benchmark is supposed to test the system's limits, not take it for a picnic. It's worthless.
ok, what are the numbers? without being able to say, a quad averages X fps, and the duo at 2.66 gets y fps, that doesnt help.
I ran the tests in algonquin and was pleased with what I saw. I had police, pedestrains, etc, and still had good fps.
I provided benchmark numbers, duo was better. show me numbers on the same type system with same setups where a quad is better and that will answer the question.
Problems? See this thread at archive.org.
