Is Quad Core Worth It?

Question

ok, im building a new computer. I am wondering is core2quad worth the money. What application/software at this time needs that CPU. Its about £210 and the Core2Duo is about £100. socket 775 btw


so which should i get for gaming, game designing, work and internet??

Answer 1

A quad core would be worth having for applications that make use of multi-threading, if you are using it for game designing - i.e doing a lot of rendering/3d design/video editting et.. then a quad core could make a difference and in future a lot more apps will start to cater towards this, but for current gaming there isn't really anything around that makes use of this and a quad won't offer any performance boost over a duo running at the same frequency for a large majority of games.

Answer 2

The quad core qill run faster on any prgrma htat is multi-threaded, thes include photo and video editing apps, most modenr gmaes, and some niche programs liek F@H.

wiht mulit-core CPU's becomeing more commn n 8 n 12 core cpu's due next year expect the number of apps to rise.

also the quad will be able to open many normal programs at once wihtout much of a slowdown.

also for £100 the Duo will only be a shade of the Quad core. (though £210 sounds wrong for the core unless your geting an extreme, whihc is a bit OTT)

so if the criteri ive mentioend fit what youwant, and you want ot future proof your pc the Quad is the way to go.

Answer 3

For gaming and general internet web surfing/e-mail, you're better off with a faster clockspeed dual-core and putting the savings into a better video card. A $200 vs $100 GPU makes a huge difference in framerates, whereas a $200 vs $100 CPU isn't a big difference.



Quad-core is worthwhile if you do lots of video editing, DVD decryption or heavy multitasking, like compiling code in the background while doing other tasks.

Answer 4

NO! Its not worth it, Get AMD X2 or Core 2. Games right now can only execute on 2 cores MAX. So youd have 2 other cores sat doing nothing LITERALLY!!! Theres basically nothing that can effectivly execute on 4 cores. Get a 2 core, then when 4 core becomes widespread and effective get a 4 which by then will be cheap as ****! I use an AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ which out performs a friend of mines Core2Quad on every benchmark test. Your better with 2x 3.0GHz cores than 4x 2.4GHz ones, right now anyway. When multithreading that can execute on 4 cores effectivly comes in mainstream thats when a 4 core will come into its own. Its going to be a few years before that happens and game developers arnt rushing to make their games executeable on 4 cores effectivly. Just trust me, 2 cores, Even PC FORMAT thinks 4 cores are a load of bull.

Answer 5

The Quad Core is a excellent choice i have one and i have not been disappointed it handles everything with ease and i run as many things as i want its just downright AWESOME so yeah

and i would recommend 3GB's of memory not 4GB because vista 64-bit sucks 32-bit is better works with more programs



GO QUAD CORE



sincerely ,

Quad.Core4

Answer 6

simple, if you can afford quad comfortably buy it, yes it wont be totally beneficial at the moment but for future proofing it is well worth it, quad will last much longer than dual. apps, games etc. will start to use it, and you will be able to also. It isnt worth updating to quad if you already had dual core, as you may as well wait till it is suffering then buy it when its cheaper, but if you are running single core, go for the quad, yes it costs more, but will last twice as long.

Answer 7

Actually the Q6600 is £120



http://www.ebuyer.com/product/131823



It is worth it if you do a lot of multitasking. Other wise look at the E6750/E6850 with a FSB of 1333Mhz

Answer 8

yup, its way much faster.. but if you want it to get cheaper just wait a few more months because intel will release a new socket 1xxx so socket 775 will be obsolete therefore cheaper..