3Ghz DualCore vs 2.2Ghz Quad

I'm thinking about buying new laptop and swapping out the processor for either a 3Ghz Core 2 Extreme X9100 or a 2.2Ghz Core 2 Quad Q9100. The Quad costs 30% less than the Extreme. Im going to be doing a little of everything on this computer(gaming, video/music encoding, running multiple virtual machines, etc). Was wondering which is the better overall chip, which is a better value, power consumption, heat, and pretty much any other pros/cons of one over the other.

My current system has a 2.4Ghz T8300 so both chips are an upgrade. (Yes the new laptop will support 1Ghz FSB so everything else checks out unless I missed something else).

 

for future proofing and "bang for the buck"... go for the quad.

games and new programs in development now are going to have multi-thread support to fully utilize as many cores your CPU has to offer.

a lot of programs now will take advantage of multi-cores for rendering/editing/converting/compressing/virtual machines.

old games and some new one do not fully have multi-thread support, but you should not notice the difference much especially if you have:
- at least 2.2GHz dual core CPU or 2.0GHz quad-core CPU
- at least 4GB of RAM (if using Vista) .... at least 2GB (if using XP)
- and a good videocard (any Nvidia 9600M or ATI 36xx/46xx and up would do)

 

Yea I was leaning towards the quad, just wanted more assurance I wont notice the slowdowns in single/dual threaded programs(like games). The system will have at least 4GB of ram (8GB when prices become reasonable) and the graphics card is either going to be a ATI 3650 or a nVidia 770M

Honestly I was very surprised to find the Quad cheaper than the Extreme in my searching...I expected to find the opposite and thereby have no difficultly choosing the extreme =P

 

Extreme CPUs have price premiums for not too much of a gain in performance... unless if you like to overclock the CPU (if your system allows it)

 

When I went to upgrade my processor, I also considered those two exact options. Consider what you'll be doing with the computer. If you consistantly use only 1-2 programs that are only single-threaded, go with the dual. If you use a lot of programs that are multi-threaded (or plan to use the computer for long time in the future) go with the quad.

 

The problem with current quad-cores is that by the time they are really useful for anything but media encoding, they will be outdated.

I personally would take the dual-core, though I think the T9800 is a better choice.

 

I disagree. Obviously, programs like office will not be optimized for multicore for a while, an going from 2.8 to 2.26 will take a toll on that performace. However, do you really need 2.8 in office anyway?
Games are already being optimized for quad (think GTA IV). Opcoming oses (windows 7, osx snow leopard) will have tech (apple calls it Grand Central) that will make distributing tasks across cores even more efficient. In two years, processor-intensive apps (almost all) will be quad optimized.

 

I actually went the other direction, and picked up a fast dual core. I totally agree with the points Weirdo81622 made, above me, but... Well, honestly, in two years if and when all that "optimization for quad" happens (and it probably will!), I'll probably look to upgrade!

I guess my philosophy has evolved into "take what works best for my needs now". There is always something new on the horizon in computer tech - 3 months, 6 months, a year down the road.... If I always wait for "the next best thing", I never actually get a computer... So, better to get something awesome for what I'm doing now (or the immediate future) and worry about 2-3 years down the road when it comes (perhaps by looking for upgrades to adjust the specs to what I need...)

Now, I realize you're not talking of waiting - you're trying to make the best decision and get a system now. And for that, you're probably the only one qualified to really decide based on your preferences, how important that cost factor is to you, and what you currently use the computer for. For me, that was gaming mostly, which made the fast dual a good choice. For you, with other stuff in there... Guess it depends on what you feel you'd get out of it!

 

Right. And hence the perpetual problem of when to actually buy a computer. The 2.26 that I bought will hopefully be pretty good for now. Hopefuly, when Montevina "Plus" comes out, it will still be compatible with the PM45 chipset, in which case I may splurge and get the rumored QX9700 (2.8 quad)...

 

Man...I was all ready to cement my decision on the quad since it's a far better value but after considering the T9600 (whose price is almost identical) I'm confused again lol. Long term promise doesnt hold much weight with me since I upgrade my systems pretty frequently (about once a year). But the quad just seems like a better deal...more raw processing power...lol I hate decisions...

 

i love my quad. much more snappy than dualcores. raw ghz mostly don't matter. but the quad is nearly never at it's 100%, making the os around your apps always respond. that's not always true anymore with dual cores.

and even for a game that is dual core optimized, the quad still allows to offload all os processes to a third core, and the gpu-driver processes as well (they work on an individual core). so while your two cores for the game are slower, they are as well empty for 100% dedication to the game.

what ever, i just love my quad

 

*sigh* i guess im going with the quad =P hopefully I dont change my mind again by the time I actually buy it haha. thanks everyone for your input XD

 

Definitely go with the quad. In a few years you will regret the dual core if you were to buy it. The future is quad core

K-TRON

 

Somebody just asked about the same question in our W90 thread so I will copy/paste my response.