Dual core vs. Quad core

Simple question: Is the cheapest quad-core better than the most expensive duo-core?

(Am actually comparing the 2630QM and the 2620M.)

Say I have a game that says in its minimum requirements: 2.4GHz duo-core.

Which processor among those two would be more appropriate in exceeding that requirement?

Also, is it possible for a quad-core to be cheaper than a duo-core? Provided they have the same brand and are from the same generation.

 

playing FPSes, generally dual cores are better bang for your buck.

RTSes and sandboxes? i'd prefer a good quad-core.

what really matters? definitely not what i said above.

LOOK AT BENCHMARKS for games that you will actually play. that is the only good advice you can have(anyone saying otherwise is a dirty liar).

 

Fine, let me put it this way: A duocore and quadcore are at the same price, different clock speed of course, but both are equal bang for your buck. Which one would you pick?

If I have a quad core that runs at 2.00Ghz, what clock speed should a duo core have to match THAT quad core?

 

Quad. Clock speeds mean nothing unless you are directly comparing a quad to another quad. 4 is better than 2, it really is that simple.

 

Thats the kind of answer I want, and the answer I was hoping for, thanks.

 

Whether quad core is better than dual core depends on whether the softwares or games that you use can utilise more than 2 cores. Some applications can only utilise dual cores, and therefore having a quad core processor is not going to speed anything up.

Quad core should cost a lot more than Dual Core if you get it from the regular retail channel.

 

I would say with the advent of turbo, and also sandybridge's very aggressive turbo, quad will be more expensive but better than dual.

 

I don't know much about today's games requirements, but what I can tell you is that, for gaming purposes, you should bother with the GPU. Both processors will be plenty enough, I believe. Except for one or another special game that really uses more then 2 cores, but I still think that the GPU will be the bottleneck.

But the quad is much more, in what it can offer the OS when comparing with the duo. So, it is a better choice in a long-term compromise. But it is up to your priority/cash.

 

For gaming, it is irrelevant. For running a single application, it is ireelevant. Most games are GPU-dependent, and rely very little on the CPU, with the exception of a small handful of games (Starcraft 2, Civilization 5, GTA4). Most applications are dependent on the storage system (HDD, SDD), and not the CPU speed. I could sit you in front of two identical computers, with the exception that one has a cheap quad-core CPU and the other has an expensive dual-core CPU. And you would not be able to tell me which system is running which CPU.

Having said that, a Quad Core is a smarter buy. The old paradigm of trying to scale performance by scaling CPU clock speed is dead. Applications are now depending on multi-threading, and not increased CPU clock speeds, to get more performance out of the hardware. A quad-core will give you a lot more headroom to multitask and run multi-threaded applications than a highly clocked dual-core CPU.

 

For gaming it is not irrelevant. Newer games are beginning to tax quad core CPU's. Sandy Bridge CPU's are pretty powerful though, but quad will help with most newer games. Most of the newer FPS games will benefit from quad core: Bad Company 2, Crysis 2, Battlefield 3, Starcraft 2, etc. Especially those with destructible environments.

 

show me a non professional program that can utilize the HT or even the 4 cores itself.

You have no idea how hard it is to code something like that.

 

Another potential benefit of Quad Core is in dealing with poorly optimised console ports. That is arguably the only reason why GTA IV runs better on a Quad and BFBC2 was similar when first released in a sense.

 

Handbrake? Open source, non-paid program using HT and 4+ cores. 7zip (depending on the compression algorithm) can use many cores as well. Lots of non-professional software that uses multiple cores.

And don't forget you have things like flash in web browsers with virus scanners running on content... simultaneous disparate tasks get a boost from multiple cores as well.

 

I gotta agree with PitaBred, there is times I am playing a video game on my i7 machine, and I alt tab out and it's been running a virus scan for the past 45 minutes and I didn't even notice it..

 

You don't need to hit all 4 cores in a single application to make a quad-core CPU worth it. Here is a common scenario:

(1) You run a multi-threaded application that uses >1 core. MANY games do that. HTWingnut mentioned a few, but there are many more.

(2) Your OS does "stuff" in the background that uses CPU cycles (e.g. virus scan, SuperFetch caching, minimized web browser windows, etc). Or maybe you're unzipping / installing an application in the background, and you're playing a game while you're waiting.

(3) You don't want those two tasks competing for resources, and affecting your gameplay experience.

 

I'd open task manager

WPrime, SuperPi, etc

On a more serious note, GTA IV, ArmA 2, Handbrake.

Quad-core with turbo boost over a dual-core is a no brainer for me.

 

But that would be like cheating!

 

Unfortunately that answer is wrong.

P.S.: The correct answer is: It all depends.

 

No, the correct answer is that price is the only advantage dual cores really have now. The clock speed differences are too small to matter, and it's now possible to have the same battery life whether you go dual or quad. Ignoring price, what reason might one have to buy a dual core now?

 

Not every notebook comes with a quad core option?

 

just get the quad core. It has more cache, and the dual core will only out perform it in single and dual threaded apps by 10%. They are both already very fast so the difference is hard to notice unless your benchmarking. In the future, many more apps will multi-threaded.
BenchmarkList

 

Other than that, obviously. lol

 

also battery