Fast Dual Core vs. Slower Quad

When compairing processors how do you compare a fast dual and a slower quad. For example, I have the opportunity to choose between a Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo Processor T9600 (2.80GHz) and a Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad Processor Q9100 (2.26 GHz) - for an additional cost of course. Will I see any benefit to running the quad even though each core is significantly slower? What are the drawbacks?
Thanks!

 

Solely depends upon the tasks you'll be running. If the apps you'll be using are truly multi-threaded and can take advantage of all 4 cores, then the QC will be better. If that app only supports upto 2 cores, then the faster DC will be better. How much more do you have to pay for the QC ?

(I saw a major improvement in video encoding fps when going from an E8600 to a Q9450)

 

You can check sites like cpubenchmark.net to compare processors, although i'm not sure how detailed the tests are, and like Andy said, it depends on the apps you use.

Btw you can read reviews on sites like newegg to see what buyers do with the CPUs and how they perform.

Cant seem to find anything on the Q9100 though lol..doesn't seem too mainstream..

 

they are only about 20% slower. so it's not significant really.

i prefer quads myself. they allow much faster (up to near 100% faster) than dual cores, and are always responsive, no matter what app (or what apps) try to block the system.

 

For laptops since the clock rates are so similar id take the quad.

 

On a related note, which would run cooler and have better battery life? And drilling down a bit, would the quad running at 50% (2 core) run cooler and have better battery life than the dual at 100%?

 

No a quad will use more power.

 

a quad at 4x 1.6ghz would theoretically use less power than a dual at 2x 3.2ghz as power consumtion is linear per core, but not linear per ghz.

 

At idle and near idle clocks, the power consumption will be the same. Its only when at full load, the QC will have a higher consumption than the DC. Though, you can always undervolt and bring the TDP down by a good 10W (depending upon the chip).
I don't get the linear thing. Power consumption increases with the increase in frequency, but not by much.

 

I would go for the quad core. The cpu will not be the bottleneck in the games. The gpu will be the bottleneck of your system.

K-TRON

 

For core 2 power prolonged battery life go 25W TDP P9600.

Quadcore cpu would be the better pick if you want more power even if the clock speed is a little slower.
Downfall would be battery life. Intel mobile quad cores up to date have a 45W TDP.


I'd sacrifice the battery life for the power for now.

 

I <3 quads. The clock speeds are close enough between these two that the Q9100 is worth it. I have about 500 music albums encoded in FLAC and you better believe I really appreciated having a quad core when it came time to convert them all to MP3 for my iPod.

 

Battery life doesn't tend to be dramatically different since you rarely utilize 100% CPU, hence you won't be near TDP. On average T -> P can yield maybe 5-15 min and Q -> T an additional 5-15 min. That extra 1/2 hour can be useful if your total battery life is say <4 hrs but if your battery lasts say 6 hrs, I can afford to lose that extra battery life.

 

So from what I am gathering, it is a little slower now, but will be faster in the future - as software can better take advantage of it?

 

The clock speed is slower but overall it has more cores to multitask process in an application to get them done faster.

So yes it is software dependent. Quad core has more potential.

 

p.s. price difference between the two is $320

 

I would say for the majority of current applications, a T9600 will provide plenty of power, and upgrading to a quad is not worth losing the battery life and $320.

 

Everything seems to be heading towards quad core, gaming included. Many of the high end applications such as CAD and Photoshop already can take advantage of four CPUs. It depends on what you'll be doing with your machine, really.

Check out this article, though it's a bit old.
http://www.guru3d.com/article/cpu-scaling-in-games-with-quad-core-processors/

 

if you have 4x2.4ghz you have up to 9.6ghz if the cpu gets fully used. you won't get any dual core that can reach that, except if it's at 4.8ghz clocked (and it would burn up much more power then as we all know. not just "a bit more").

i'm all for quadcore. it is just never slow.. no matter how much i do

 

I would go for quadcore as any dual core at the same clock speed as that quad core would be enough for gaming, the GPU does most performance in games anyways so

And you can't really multiply a quadcore's speed like 4*2.4GHz davepermen, you should know better

Just because you get 4 horses draging you and your sled doesn't mean it will go twice the speed as if you had 2 horses draging you and your sled. It will only spread the work overall the horses and they don't have to get as tired as when they are 2

 

The GPU is really the bottleneck as K-TRON said, so the CPU won't make much of a difference. I would always want to future-proof my computer, with a Quad-Core and everything else, so that's the benefit of QC. You won't be in the older category of Dual-Core users when the time comes.

 

Personally, future proofing isn't worth investing additional money into. Fast dual cores are the best for most applications right now. If you do stuff that requires heavy CPU processing, get a desktop - it's a whole lot cheaper and much faster.

 

Quad will lower your battery life, there are many Dual cores that run awesome, not worth the money right now and the battery power. I say wait it out, many dual cores do awesome.

 

Yeah, I agree. But with future proofing part, mabye he would want his laptop to be his main "all in one" computer, so the quad might not be a bad idea, especially if he is aiming to keep it years to come.

 

But then he might as well wait for the I7 based quad-core mobile cpus...

 

$320 is a lot to pay for a processor upgrade, I'd say regardless of whether you double the cores, that is not worth $320. The T9600 is a very powerful CPU. Unless the application is specifically designed to take advantage of multiple core and you do things with that program that are very large, then the quad core won't be worth the cost.