Dual or Quad Core?? - Saxperience

jus_tin · 15th October 2010, 11:32

Im building my own pc and cant decide whether i should get a dual or quad core processor. Obviously quad is better but since i wont be doing any gaming or using any hyperthreading software like photoshop do i really need to spend the extra on a quad core? Would i be better off getting a dual core and maxing out the RAM.

mlawlan69 · 15th October 2010, 15:37

Would just stick with a dual core if your not gunna be needing a quad, i bought a built up one 3 years ago and its still going strong Only thing changed was an 8800gt oc2 and 4gb of gold ram (muts nuts lol) still flys through crysis and all that shit and only cost £700 total.. point being anyway save the money for something you will be needing lol....

haz_pro · 15th October 2010, 15:57

What you gunna be using the computer for mate?

Viper · 15th October 2010, 16:07

It depends what you're going to use it for.

If you still want a quad just for the hell of it you could always look in to the Intel Q6600. Still a very capable CPU. Should be pretty cheap now although I don't know if you can get them new any more?

jus_tin · 15th October 2010, 16:58

will mainly just be used for browsing net, abit of photo editing but not on photoshop (too advanced for me), playing on reason and virtual dj. thats about it. wont be playing games coz got ps3 for that. was looking at the amd phenom x4 945 processor around £100, but seen a i3 processor and motherboard bundle for £130.

KamRacing · 15th October 2010, 17:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by jus_tin

will mainly just be used for browsing net, abit of photo editing but not on photoshop (too advanced for me), playing on reason and virtual dj. thats about it. wont be playing games coz got ps3 for that. was looking at the amd phenom x4 945 processor around £100, but seen a i3 processor and motherboard bundle for £130.

buy a reasonably low end processor and load up on ram then instead. For basic use theres no point in spending a fortune

haz_pro · 15th October 2010, 17:05

i3 and 4gb of ram should be fine for that, i have a 2 gh amd dual core with 2gb of ram in my laptop and it does all of them things fine. Reason and virtualDJ pro run perfectly, so with 4gb you will have no problems at all.

I would be temped to get a quad core just because, but i am a geek.

Penn · 15th October 2010, 17:52

Most apps still only support 2 cores so go for a core 2 duo i3 as haz said. Most of the i3's can be overclocked very easily too if you need it.

haz_pro · 15th October 2010, 18:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Penn

Most apps still only support 2 cores so go for a core 2 duo i3 as haz said. Most of the i3's can be overclocked very easily too if you need it.

Just to clarify Penn means core i3 im sure.

Jamb0 · 15th October 2010, 20:32

quad i7?

haz_pro · 15th October 2010, 21:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jamb0

quad i7?

Screw it, why buy quad when you can get six?

I reccomend he buys this: Click Me

Manu · 20th October 2010, 18:54

Pentium 4 + 4 Gb ram on windows XP will do for what you need. get a soundcard if you use sound related programs.

Slugshead · 21st October 2010, 17:26

I've been running intel Q6400 and 6gb ram and two 250GB hard drives on RAID 0 for 4 years now and still keeps up..

If you want speed on budget, you want.. Quad core imo as they are so cheap now, but make sure there is plenty of L2 cache (makes it smoother) plenty of RAM (DDR2 or DDR3) the latter is more expensive but faster..

Hard drives will make the biggest difference to you, throw in a 500GB hard drive for £70 and you get what you got, get two 250GB hard drives and make sure you put them on a RAID 0, (motherboard dependant) and it will show up as if you have 1 500GB disk. RAID 0 is made for performance (roughly 20% faster than single hard drive setup)

Penn · 21st October 2010, 19:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slugshead

I've been running intel Q6400 and 6gb ram and two 250GB hard drives on RAID 0 for 4 years now and still keeps up..

If you want speed on budget, you want.. Quad core imo as they are so cheap now, but make sure there is plenty of L2 cache (makes it smoother) plenty of RAM (DDR2 or DDR3) the latter is more expensive but faster..

Hard drives will make the biggest difference to you, throw in a 500GB hard drive for £70 and you get what you got, get two 250GB hard drives and make sure you put them on a RAID 0, (motherboard dependant) and it will show up as if you have 1 500GB disk. RAID 0 is made for performance (roughly 20% faster than single hard drive setup)

Been running a Q6600 overclocked at 3ghz on stock cooler for 3 years now with 6gb DDR2 ram and it's still bloody quick. Recently put a 300gb 10krpm raptor in as my 6 year old drive failed on me.

It's worth noting that if you run in RAID 0 and one drive fails, you've lost the data cross both drives so still a single point of failure even though you have 2 drives on the go.

haz_pro · 21st October 2010, 19:46

My friends got an SSD for the OS and programs and then a 7200 rpm hard drive for other stuff. Runs way quicker than it did before the SSD, wish i could afford one!

Penn · 21st October 2010, 21:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by haz_pro

My friends got an SSD for the OS and programs and then a 7200 rpm hard drive for other stuff. Runs way quicker than it did before the SSD, wish i could afford one!

I was tempted to go for SSD instead of my raptor but I just couldnt justify the price. Plus, the controllers keep changing so often on them, it will be out of date and faster transfer speeds will be available in a few months time!

Gotta love technology!

haz_pro · 21st October 2010, 22:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Penn

I was tempted to go for SSD instead of my raptor but I just couldnt justify the price. Plus, the controllers keep changing so often on them, it will be out of date and faster transfer speeds will be available in a few months time!

Gotta love technology!

haha yeah, but you cant think about whats around the corner with technology because its constantly changing!

I can see myself getting an SSD maybe within a year or so if prices reduce, I would want atleast 160GB for 100GBP.

Slugshead · 21st October 2010, 22:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Penn

Been running a Q6600 overclocked at 3ghz on stock cooler for 3 years now with 6gb DDR2 ram and it's still bloody quick. Recently put a 300gb 10krpm raptor in as my 6 year old drive failed on me.

It's worth noting that if you run in RAID 0 and one drive fails, you've lost the data cross both drives so still a single point of failure even though you have 2 drives on the go.

Always wanted to RAID 0 the raptors lol seek times would be immense. With redudancy, does anyone actually consider a redundancy of the OS outside of work? I know I dont lol, id rather sit there loving the speed benefits of the RAID0 and just replace disks as they konk out

kennysevenfold · 22nd October 2010, 21:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by haz_pro

Screw it, why buy quad when you can get six?

I reccomend he buys this: Click Me

Because he doesnt think he will use 4 cores let alone 6. and that is just so over-prices at the min.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manu

Pentium 4 + 4 Gb ram on windows XP will do for what you need. get a soundcard if you use sound related programs.

Pentium 4? you will be cheaper getting a core 2 duo tbh.

Slugshead · 25th October 2010, 18:20

P4 rocks my socks, got a 8Ghz one in work with H/T and 2Gb ram, VERY unstable but fun

the sheer heat that thing generates is hilarious... the parts were sourced from our scrap collection for that month and i had ample time and a fire extringuser handy...

..Waiting for sarcy comments now, its inevitable