Quad vs. Dual Core

I realize that this has been asked on numerous occasions all across the web but I am just getting some final answers.

I was looking at the Sager NP9262 and it is only a $5 difference between the 3.0 GHz dual core and the 2.4 GHz quad core.

I plan on doing gaming as well as office tasks and simple web browsing. I also have been trying to learn some game development. Which do you think would better suit my needs?

I also need this computer for around 4 years with minimal upgrades.

Would the quad core be over-clockable and if so how much?

Thanks.

 

Its very hard to Overclock laptops if not impossible as I've heard. It is technically possible. But either way. If you get an application which was programmed to specifically work on a dual/quad core processor the quad will be faster even tho you have a .6 GHZ faster dual core because you have two more core's working on the quad

Theoretically!

Real life performance obviously would vary on what app your using but the Quad is much more future proof IMO

 

Unless you multi-task like crazy, the faster dual core will be a much better choice. I seriously doubt that any normal person can do so much on their computer to require 4 cores. Office tasks and light web browsing do not need 4 cores, and neither does game development.

So get the faster dual core, because that's all you really need anyway.

 

the 3.0 GHz dual core would be better for your needs unless you plan on doing serious video compiling/editing. There aren't that many game out there that can make use of multiple cores, and even for in the future, your Graphics Card will likely be the bottleneck before either CPU.

As for overclockability on the quad core, i believe that they are locked, which would mean that you couldn't overclock it. I am not positive about this though. I would have serious concerns about overclocking a quad core in a laptop though, seeing as it is probably going to be running hot already (though the NP9262 is a beast of a machine .

Hope this helps

 

I don't think either processor is going to OC...and honestly, both processors have more power than you need anytime soon. I'm sitting here on my Q6600 and barely use all its power! I won't need a CPU upgrade for at least 3-5 years at this rate, and with a GPU upgrade my desktop's gonna last at least as long I hope.

 

But which is better future-proofed?

 

Quad core as I said... More and more app's are coming out to harness the more and more cores on 1 processor. And dual cores are not locked. not sure about quads though

 

Only Intel Extreme processors are unlocked for OCing. The only way to OC a locked CPU is to raise the FSB speed, and AFAIK no laptop allows for that.

But yes, quad core is more "futureproof" in that apps will continue to be optimized for more and more cores.

 

The
Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 3.0GHz w/ 4MB L2 Cache - 1333MHz FSB
is locked.
The
Intel Core 2 Duo EXTREME X6800 2.93GHz w/ 4MB L2 Cache - 1066MHz FSB
is unlocked
Most Dual cores are locked Xtremes are not

They are still working on optimizing 2 threads not 4 threads so for future proof you are fine with Dual and the faster clock will show improvement with current and most future apps over lower clocked Quads.

Edit: In a 2 threaded app the E6850 has 1.2Ghz more processing power than Q6600.

 

I remember a thread a few days ago at Overclock.net speaking about this and i was pretty sure that they were speaking about overclocking a Dual Core 2 on a Laptop. FSB though. I'm sure it can be done somehow but the question is would the results be worth it? Probably not.

 

The quad cores have a bigger L2 cache than the E6xxxs. Does this fact make the quad cores better than the dual cores. Or, are the dual cores, with faster clock speeds (3.0Ghz vs 2.66Ghz), and faster FSB (1333Mhz vs 1066Mhz) better than the quads.

 

RightMarkCPU allows OC FSB at least on AMD's. Can't speak for Intel but there are others out there.


Edit: The L2 works out to the same amount per core so I don't think that is so important. If you can make use of all 4 cores then the lower clocked Quad has more processing power if you can't the Duo wins.

 

Has anyone made a comparison here about battery life yet?

I'd be concerned that putting a quad in a laptop would greatly reduce battery life --unless of course, the OP's thought is that this is never going to stray from locations where an AC outlet is handy.

This is just me, but I wouldn't go quad-core in a laptop. There currently aren't any mobile versions of quad-core CPU's in production AFAIK, so you'll be getting a desktop quad-core CPU with desktop-level power consumption and heat dissipation.

Finally, you'll get far more improvements in gaming by choosing the fastest mobile graphics solution you can over and above the fastest CPU.

 

I was going to get 512MB 8800Ms in SLI but I want this computer to last me four years with only GPU, RAM, and HDD upgrades if that. So future use is important to me also. This is going to be my only computer so I'm not worried a ton about power consumption, of course lower is better.

 

LoneWolf15 both CPU's discussed are Desktop. Based on TDP I get a 13% difference, I know TDP is not power draw but is all I have to work with. The CPU is not the only thing drawing power. But for the sake of discussion let us run with 13%. All else being equal if the Dual Core (desktop) gets 2.5 hour the Quad (actually .8666) gets 2.1665hrs. Does that matter? Depends on the individual.

If talking Mobile vs Desktop (falls apart different components including GPU) but CPU's alone. E6850 65w vs X9000 44w TDP's again 32% so same 2.5hrs (Quad actually .6769) gets 1.692hrs. These numbers likely more accurate under medium to heavy load vs idle. It is all speculation but until someone shows better all I have to work with.

 

So far, the only laptop I've seen reviewed with 8800Ms in SLI gets 45-60min of battery life when brand new (Dell's new XPS M1730). It uses approximately 100 watts at idle, and at maximum load can go as high as 200-230. And that system is using a true mobile Penryn processor (T8300); one with a desktop processor is likely to use more power and get less battery life.

I'm assuming that you plan on running this on AC most of the time, then? I only ask because for the price of a high-end gaming laptop, you can probably purchase both a really good gaming desktop, and have enough left over for a laptop that gives good portable performance and actual battery life. And the desktop will be upgradeable to handle newer games as they are released.

P.S. I have nothing against Sager --I think they make some good stuff.

 

I am not too concerned with power consumption. This will be my only computer. I want a desktop replacement so that I have the option of portability as it will come in handy for school and such but I won't do a ton of mobile computing.

 

Will Quad-Core programs become more common in a few years that it will be more future-proof? How much of a difference does 600 MHz make when talking 2.4 vs. 3?

 

More common? Yes. Necessary? Probably not unless you're into CAD/3D-rendering/heavy video postprocessing work. By then, it will probably be less expensive than it is now, and easier to consider selling your current system and getting another one, since by then, systems will probably be even more power-efficient (even if you don't value battery life, certainly less heat). Who knows, mobile quad-core processors may be available by then.

Either of those two processors can run anything out there today pretty well, and the quad-core's second two cores will likely be idle most of the time. Note also that if you're thinking of this as a gaming machine, a powerful graphics card trumps everything else, including the CPU.

To compare , I'll use a desktop example (results are similar). I went from an AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ (a fairly powerful CPU at the time) to an Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 (quite a bit faster yet) a little more than a year ago, keeping my graphics card (an XFX Geforce 8800GTS) the same. My games framerates (all settings being equal) budged maybe 1-2fps. This is because the games weren't limited by the CPU --they were limited by the graphics card. You can upgrade the CPU all you want, but in many cases, games aren't starved for processor power --they are for graphics processing.

 

So would you recommend the C2Q at only $5 more?

 

I wouldn't. I'd be worried about the additional heat it would generate under load, and I don't think it would benefit you in today's applications; I think the higher clockspeed of the dual-core would produce better results.

I also just looked at Sager's website. Your 3.0GHz dual-core CPU is based on the new Penryn core, so you'll get a cooler (and likely quieter) notebook, and SSE4 support for faster performance in multimedia apps that support it. Your quad-core CPU is based on the older Kentsfield core; it does not support SSE4, and has a slower frontside bus. You're better off with the dual-core IMO.

 

What is the difference between the the Penryn and Kentsfield? What about future applications, how long do you think it is before we see some serious games/apps supporting four cores?

 

If you go in the Sager forum and get actual comments from owners rather than speculation as in this thread, you'll see that even with the quad-core, the NP9262 handles itself exceptionally well. The difference between the dual and the quad in battery life is negligible. If you're buying an NP9262 you shouldn't be concerned with battery life anyway.

I do not see a reason NOT to get the quad-core. That's two more cores of pure power. You don't need it most likely, but for $5, why the hell not? 2.4GHz vs. 3.0GHz doesn't make a shred of difference for gaming, and for anything multi-CPU capable the quad will smash the dual.

Just get the quad.

 

I've answered this quiet a few times. Better performance in CURRENT app's I would go with the Duo being slightly ahead. When asking about future support I would undoubtedly go with the Quad. As time goes on. More and more applications will be optimized to use the MOST cores on one processor. The Quad is much more future proof

 

Thanks. Is the extra $275 for 2.66 GHz C2Q worth it? And are there any C2D vs. C2Q benchmarks anywhere?

 

No IMO its not worth it. There is a huge jump from the T9500 & the T9700. Its not warranted. And Im not sure about the benchmarks. Check a review on the NP9262. Somebody has reviewed one with a Quad in it im sure

 

I would think so. Cus 4*o.26 = 1.44 Ghz difference. Why dont u wait till Sager makes a statement about the new QC's? IT will be very soon...

 

Why dont you wait for the Montevina to drop while your at it NOT. I think if your going to jump on some technology might as well take the jump or youll always be in limbo of waiting for new tech.

 

does quad core really mean x4? so 2.4x4 is like 9.6ghz?

lol so the dual core only has 6ghz total power? lol i think im really simplifying the matter.

for a 5$ difference get the quad man!

 

Is the over all performance really the number of cores times the clock speed? Does it really cause a large boost in performance?

 

Technically you have 4 cores each running at either 2.4 or 2.66 GHZ. However if your only running 1 app, its not like having an ultra powerful processor. Only one core will be working usually. So the boost is more noticeable when your multi tasking

 

The quad will make a huge difference if you're going to be encoding/decoding media files or plan on multitasking a lot. If you just want to play games it's not worth it, although I would say that if you just want to play games it's not worth buying the rig at all.

 

I would say the exact opposite. When I spoke of future App's being more oriented to using more core's per single app I meant games also.

 

But will the .22 GHz over 4 cores make a noticeable performance difference?

 

Not really if your using an app which utilizes 1 of those cores or 2. Unless like I said your using an app that utilizes those cores or if your multitasking. However in the future more and more app's will efficiently utilize those cores.

 

So would you say it's worth another $275 considering the future?

 

Well if your putting an large investment into this laptop I would say yes. Many people will disagree but personally I'm going to go the quad processor route myself when I get my Sager. But maybe you will want to get some other opinions. I think if your going to put a few thousand dollars in a laptop it might as well last.

 

I would go for the Q6600 for everything... enough applications/games now take advantage of four cores.

 

I opted for the q6600 as well.

and in the future via bios update gophn do you think I will be able to use the q9550?

 

as I got from Clevo sources, a BIOS update is what is mainly needed to support Penryn CPUs.

 

that's great. Looks like My d901c Will treat me well for a good year. maybe more eh?

 

My D900K is the first dual core notebook two years ago.

It still functions as well as it did when I built it.

Even its gaming abilities still surpasses new Santa Rosa notebooks with 8600M GTs.

I think your quad-core system would last for at least 2-3 years easily.

 

It doesn't work like that, no. When playing a game, it will be like playing on a 2.4GHz Core 2 CPU (which is more than enough for any game).

Even in multi-CPU capable apps, the GHz doesn't technically stack. A 9.6GHz Core 2 isn't even possible, and even if it was, there would be serious issues at that speed. 4 x 2.4GHz =/= 1 x 9.6GHz (yes I know it makes sense mathematically).

 

Great!, Even my m1710 with t7600 and 7900gtx was doing very well. but I like to have newer stuff. the part that I dont like is that dell gets new gen's going and they are totally different.

atleast with the d901c I will be able to change mobo's and hopefuly keep it for a while.

if they like the design and stick with it. they could use it even for the next gen mot, and 9800m

 

Can anyone suggest a Good Quad core laptop
or is it better to wait to get one

I know new stuff coming in every few months
just dont want to get a Quad Core & feel Oh better if i had waited
till Dec to get it

 

Look at the Asus c90 ....

 

The only quad core currently available is the Clevo D901C/Sager 9262. The C90's a dual desktop processor packing 15.4.

If you're willing to wait, quad core mobile processors are due to be out the next year or after.

 

Thank you

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the OP mentioned game development. I think compilers are starting to be optimized for multiple cores, so it might help him with compile times to get a quad core. That is of course dependant on him doing programming, and on compiler multithreading.

 

The quad is not that impressive in real life if you`re much into gaming.
There`s only a handful of games that even utilise quad cores, so the more speed in a dual core packaging,the better.
As long as the price isn`t ridiculousely high. As intel like to do...