Single, Dual or Quad Core: Which Is Best For You?
97
A Basic Guide To What The Heck They're Talking About
This is usually of absolutely no help to the average computer user who just wants the machine to run faster, knows they have to upgrade, and doesn't have a clue what a core does in the first place.
Therefore this article is for the entry-level crowd. The CPU Forum Gurus can just go back into their Silicon caves and not bother pointing out the oversimplifications as I'm not writing a white paper for AMD's Dr. Hector Ruiz.
At the beginning of personal computing there were various manufacturers of Central Processing Units (CPUs) which are the processors, or the brains, of your computer. Pretty well everything that is processed in your computer, with the major exception of the video processing, is done inside the CPU. That makes the CPU a very critical part of your system. Generally speaking, the faster your CPU can process the data, the faster your system responds and the less time you spend twiddling your thumbs and watching the hourglass.
These manufacturers started trying to top each other by making faster and faster CPUs. Most of them failed and went to join Cyrix in Silicon Heaven. Only Intel and AMD survived the shakeout, the former a $125 billion giant and the latter a $7 billion scrapper which held Intel at bay for several years with better, cheaper CPUs before developing a puzzling case of incompetentitis gravis in early 2006 and stumbing/delaying/screwing up all their new product launches.
Both Intel and AMD spent about a decade getting their silicon to go faster and faster until they both hit a brick wall around 2004. Current technology really wouldn't let the CPUs go above 4 GHz (a measure of processor speed in the cycles that they can process information). Any attempts to break the 4 GHz barrier resulted in steel smelter heat generation and nuclear powerplant electrical requirements.
Since Moore's Law states that computing has to double in speed every 18 months, engineering limitations be damned, there was no choice but to increase the number of cores in the CPU. This is analogous to taking a 4 cylinder engine out of your Chevy Vega and plunking in a 454 V-8 Big Block. Twice the number of "cylinders" should produce twice the "speed."
It didn't really work out that way, however. Taking a 3 GHz core and fitting it next to another 3 GHz core didn't process like a 6 GHz core at all. That's because the second core needs specific software to process at the same time. Processing data is like a single cash register queue. One bit has to follow the other. If you try to process one bit on this side and the next bit on the other side, the computer will get confused and process nothing at all, just like the cash register operator trying to serve two customers at once.
It turned out that less than 1% of all popular software applications could handle the second core. The ones that could, like Adobe Photoshop, would absolutely fly! On a 3 GHz per side dual core, Photoshop performs like it was accessing a 6 GHz single core or even better than that! However, most other software, games, etc. just didn't even recognize the second core and kept plugging along at normal speed.
Fortunately, both Windows XP and Vista can slough off some of their own Operating System functions so that users will notice a serious increase in speed when they go to dual-core, even when running applications that are not "multi-threaded" like Photoshop. One core will be dedicated to only running the application and the other core will run all the background functions.
Therefore the bottom line for most computer users is do not buy another single core. You'll see faster response time and generally have a happier computing experience.
Then what does a quad core do? A quad core is double a dual core. It can process four streams at once. This represents an astounding jump in processing speed for those rare "multi-threaded" applications, but for the majority of regular users, they would be hard pressed to tell the difference between the performance of a dual core vs. a quad core on their desktop, individual core speeds being equal.
So is the quad core CPU being sold just for bragging rights? Not exactly. Even if you are not a current "multi-threaded" application user today, you very likely will be in the future. Programmers are rewriting their applications to take advantage of the multiple cores and you will be left behind if you are still stuck on single core CPUs. Buying a quad core today is a great insurance policy for the future and will ensure that you are pretty well future-proofed against computer obsolescence for a couple of years at least.
AMD and Intel have been engaged in a cutthroat price war so the price of a quad core has fallen sharply, and thus has become very affordable to all.
My best advice to anyone configuring a new system today that they intend to keep for a while is to go with these specifications as an absolute minimum:
Quad-core of minimum 2.66 GHz per core.
2 GB RAM, and make sure you have two more empty RAM slots on your motherboard for future expansion.
500 GB Hard Drive (the prices have come way down).
Don't get suckered into buying a DX10 video card quite yet, unless you're an ardent gamer. These new, expensive and very power-hungry cards offer absolutely no advantage to anyone who doesn't process video at the level of 3D pros, HDTV editors and rabid gameplayers. The video card is an easy upgrade later anyway.
The essence of my advice to all the people considering upgrading from their old single cores is to take the jump directly to quad core. You'll be thankful for it in the future.
Check out hundreds of Hal's PC Technology articles in these categories:
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
Imhotep,
Thanks I have spent months looking for the simple, clear explanation that you share with us here.
You get my vote as the most intelligent man in America, and the next president of the USA.
Shlala Gashle
Dear Shlala.
Thank you for the Imhotepization although I do tend to prefer Greek to Egyptian architecture, but I digress. However, I do have to express my appreciation for the nomination of the most intelligent man in (North) America, but I respectfully decline the invitation to be President of the USA. I'm having way too much fun doing what I'm doing now, and the last thing I need is to be the subject of Jay Leno's barbs five nights a week.
I will now retire to my cool and relaxing tomb at Saqqara. :)
Hi Thx man!But is it ok if you could give me a list of brands of motherboards, graphic cards, RAMs, Hard Disk , and a good casing or any recommended cooling that I could use as my current PC is having a sahara desert experience told by my techician.Thx!
Check my Master Tech Hub on http://hubpages.com/hub/Hals-Master-PC-Technology- for all sorts of computer component articles. If you still require help, let me know and I'll do my best!
"Buying a quad core today is a great insurance policy for the future"
"Don't get suckered into buying a DX10 video card quite yet"
so its ok to buy quad core for the future but not video card?
Yes, because although the multithreadedness of applications is inevitable, making the quad core a good choice for a long term system build, the validity of DX10 is highly questionable and may be entirely a moot point as we approach DX11. We're already at DX10.1 and many believe that the day of proprietary graphic standards may be at an end.
very nice information
Thanks! I appreciate your compliments!
I agree with Jay
Kulsum, thank you, but even if I was the most intelligent man in America, the next president of the USA has just been chosen and I think that the electorate might not be willing to elect a Canadian such as myself! :)
Ahhh... a quad core then... thanks for the enlightenment. Thumbs up man!!!
Go for the quad, and if you can spare a few extra bucks, the i7 920 is the most bang for the buck out there today!
wow this is really great information as i am aware about all this but bit confuse about the expansion slot..would it be ok to expand more memory? will processor be able to support it?
Any modern processor will handle way more memory than you could fit in a mainstream motherboard. The critical aspect is the operating system. 32 bit OSs which are the majority of the ones currently installed hit the wall at 3.2 GB of RAM. However, for the same price you can buy XP, Vista, etc. in 64 bit and then the amount of RAM you can access is effectively unreachable by the home computer user. I have 12 GB RAM in my new i7 920 with 64 bit Vista and it's AMAZING!
ok Hal Licino got the idea...thanx a lot for making me aware about this....you have amazing knowledge about computers. 12GB RAM means you must have 3 slots of 4Gb RAM strips right?
Thanks for the kind words! :) In my i7 system I have 6 slots with 2 GB each, although I could populate 3 of the slots with 4 GB but that would end up costing considerably more as that RAM is rather rare right now. Keep in mind that i7 is TRIPLE channel so it should take its RAM in multiples of 3: 6, 9, 12, etc. Core 2 and AMD Phenom II is DUAL channel so it takes its RAM in multiples of 2: 4, 8, etc.
Helped my knowledge of processor cores alot, I had no idea about any of this stuff. I just thought the more the merrier. Great information.
Thank you very much! I appreciate your comments!
i dont think normal users need quad core.. its used by photoshop, etc.. designers..
Multiple core CPUs excel in extreme multithreaded apps, and yes, Photoshop is among them. I can certainly testify to that, since my Core i7 920 runs eight hyperthreaded cores and Photoshop just zooms on it. Video encoding, 3D and other similar work is also massively facilitated by quad cores.
The average computer user that I run into does not really need the higher speed chips. These users only open simple apps and rarely have more than three of those open at a time. Those that run Photoshop, Maya, or other bulky graphics programs can really see and benefit from the extra money spend on the faster processing chips.
I couldn't agree more. As a Photoshop Phanatic I need every bit of the 12GB RAM and every processor cycle I can squeeze out of the eight hyperthreaded cores which I have running at Turbo. However, for the user who runs MS Office, surfs the web, and watches an occasional movie, that's complete overkill.
Thanks for the article. very helpful. i never leave posts, but i was so impressed with the straight forward article i had to say thanks.
Thanks for the kind words. Much appreciated! :)
Thanks for sharing such a usefull information. I really got some new points from your hub.
My pleasure! :)
absolutely brilliant man all of your articles are very easy to understand and useful; keep up with the good work:)) greetings from Romania
Thank you very much, sunt fericit l-ai gasit util! :)
Thank you for your excellent article. Do quad cores need more memory than dual or single cores, and if so, how much more?
For example, if 4 - 6GB RAM is required to run a multi-threaded application on a single core, would one need to buy more RAM to run the same application on a quad core?
Sheena, it would be nice if it worked that way, but unfortunately it doesn't. A multithreaded app will only run in one core on a single core system, unless it's equipped with Intel's hyperthreading (which was horrible on the old CPUs, but phenomenal on the new Core i7s). RAM is not a factor in multiple core processing of a properly coded multithreaded app. Having said that, you will find that on any system whether it be a single core or an octocore with Intel HT for a total of 16 cores in your Task Manager, that additional RAM will allow you to run more apps at the same time, and also let the apps you're running react much more "snappily." I went from a Core 2 Quad with 3GB RAM on Vista 32 to a Core i7 with 12 GB RAM on Vista 64 and the difference in, say, launching Photoshop CS4 is absolutely shocking. It's at least 4 to 5 times faster. The vast majority of that improvement is down to the additional RAM.
Thanks for your quick response!
Now I use my dual core @2.53GHz. Performance is better than a single core. I think, than the processor, RAM capacity is also important to consider.
I agree that RAM is extremely important. The warp drive speed I'm getting out of my current system is only partially due to the phenomenal processing ability of the Core i7, but also due to the 12 GB RAM. That is especially evident in Photoshop which is an infamous RAM hog.
this is not an advertisement or anything.
peace!
I need your opinion on this one.
intel core 2 duo E8200
or
AMD phenom x3 8600??
(i cant afford a quad core)
which is better more core with low clockspeed or less core with high clockspeed?
No comparison at all. The AMD is a quad with a disabled fourth core, and the utility of that odd third core is highly questionable. The Intel Core 2 Duo E8200 scores 8390 while the AMD Phenom X3 8600 manages 8259 on the 3DMark Vantage Score and the much higher clock of the E8200 will provide much better performance on any single threaded app which still constitute 99% of all the apps out there.
ohw I see... but how about in multi threaded app? which is better?
In multithreads, the more cores the better. Just be careful since a fair number of apps which call themselves multithreaded only run on one core leaving the OS to run on a second core. Therefore for all of those, anything more than a dual core is a waste.
thanks a lot sir. this is such a great guide. by d way, whats with this 45nm and 65nm technologies?
dual core PC isnt necessary for running oridinary applications.. but using dual core has its merits..the applications responds vey fast...
dual core PC with XP is a good option for oridinry home user..
im a software developer and i run a webserver and database server on my dual core pc on 1 gb RAM and im satisfues with the results...
morzshock: The difference in nm is the measurement of the size of the structure of the silicon chip in nanometers. The smaller it is, the more circuits can be packed onto a given size of wafer and (generally) the less electricity it will consume and the less heat it will produce. I really should write a Hub on that! :)
creativeMind: Actually I'm surprised that you can run a web/db server on 1 GB RAM. I have a laptop with that much RAM and I can't seem to do much of anything on it, even running XP.
hal licino: you can give me your laptop if you dont like it..^^,... Im still confuse which is better for gaming... please do have a comment on this one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kd0Of4PnpQk
im just a gamer who plays a dual window of a game(one for the attacker and the other for the supporter) ^^,...
The video is just plain silly. Why compare it with the Intel G35 chipset which is limited to DDR2 800 RAM? It was an AMD fanboi POS. The vast majority of games out today are single threaded, so there is really no advantage to throwing lots of cores at them. Actually, I'll be glad to SELL you my laptop! :)
but in that case, the amd is a bit advantage to that settings? im just making a priority list out of the most advantage set up of them all. I wish to if you could just give it to me freely..^^, its to far from here in the philippines to have a business with you sir. ^^,
Hi morzshock. Actually I'm just kiddin' about selling my laptop as I use it occasionally when I'm outside, and I don't need anything too powerful then, just a data bucket, so it does fine.
There is no reason... no reason whatsoever.. in July 2009 to buy an AMD CPU. None. That's my position and I'm sticking to it. In that comparison they were using a low end G35 Intel chipset. Compare it against a higher level Intel chipset mobo which costs maybe ten bucks more, and it will trash the AMD. It was a biased test.
Thanks for sharing great information
Thanks man your great
Thank you very much to both of you! :)
Noting your comments about Photoshop being multi-threaded, do you know whether Adobe In Design is now multi-threaded and would it be able to benefit from Quad core over Dual? I will be running this software on a new system I will be building (subject to your adive on type) almost certainly using an AMD CPU and XP Pro SP3.
Yes, all of Adobe CS4 is multithreaded and will fly on a quad core. I'm using it on a Core i7 and it's PHENOMENAL!
Thanks for the info Hal. Myself, I put together a list of parts I would need to build a HTPC, in which I will be buy next month (actually with next week's pay check). I was a bit confused at whether or not I should buy a quad core. After reading your post, I will go for the Quad. The Q9550 is only $30 more than the E8500 I was looking at. Plus for that $30 you get 2 more cores and 6mb of L2 cache.
I've also decided to go with a board that has the G45 chipset as opposed to the board with the G43 chipset. (specifically the Asus P5Q line). I don't care about gaming on the PC (that is what the Xbox 360 is for, IMO), but I do care about how HD content will look, and I'm not getting the quality I desire with my old 3.0 P4 running 2GB of ram and an FX-5300 card.
Jeez, I'm sitting here contemplating on spending $229 on a Quad-Core when I spent the same amount for a 486-DX2 chip back in 1994. {{slaps head}} Well, at least ram is affordable. Back then, I paid another $464 for 16mb of ram! 32mb SIMM sticks were over $1300!!! LOL
Yes, I remember the bad old days of big money for RAM. I remember when 4 x 1 MB sticks of Mac RAM cost $2400! Ouch! You will love your Q9550. It's a great Quad! Enjoy!
I have dual core enabled laptop ...... so i prefer it ...
It all depends on what you're doing on it, but if you are actually working on various apps rather than just web surfing, a dual core laptop can be just great! Quads are overkill for most laptops, right now, at least.
By the way people keep in mind, if you do plan on using your computer for games, a e8500 overclocked to 4ghz or higher would benefit you more than a quad at 3ghz since most games dont use quad cores to their fullest yet. But thats for games.
Fritos, I agree about the fast dual being better for CURRENT games than a quad, but OCing an E8500 well over 4 GHz is definitely a fool's errand. The heat produced and the decline in reliability is simply not worth the trouble.
Good information - I haven't gone for a dual or multi core processor yet, but suspect that will be the next upgrade cycle for me.
Definitely go with at least a dual core. It makes a significant difference in everyday computing over a single core.
Hal,
Thanks for posting a great article. I was wondering if you could share your thoughts on whether it would be better for current usage (and hopefully to future-proof and/or ease of upgrade at least 3-4 years into the future) to get a new desktop running a Core 2 Quad Core 8300 @ 2.50GHz with 8 gigabytes of the new DDR3 RAM or to choose a new desktop running AMD Phenom X4 9750 quad core @ 2.4GHz with 8GB DDR2 RAM. Assume the other elements (e.g. graphics, hard drive size, sound card, etc.) are effectively equal. The intended uses for the machine are general home office/small business applications with casual gaming, movie watching, internet surfing, and occasional to moderate video/photo editing but nothing 'high-end' in that arena. Going the Core i7 CPU route is more than I want to spend in my budget (circa no more than $700 for the system sans monitor).
Also, do you think going the new DDR3 Ram route is worth it? I got burned back in the mid/late 90s when I bought my first PC and got sold the "Rambus RD-RAM is the next tech wave" and ended up facing substantially higher prices when I was considering buying additional RAM to upgrade that system a couple years later.
Hi Michael K. Thanks for the kind words. I'm very biased towards the i7 as the darn thing is a rocketship. I'm a huge believer in DDR3 as well, but ONLY in a triple channel setup. DDR3 in dual channel simply does not utilize the majority of the benefits of DDR3 so you might as well just put on some DDR2 sticks in the PC.
The main reason I recommend the i7 to almost anyone who is interested in anything more powerful than a basic web surfing system is because when you calculate the cost, it really is roughly equivalent to any other much less powerful system
The i7 920 is currently at newegg.com at $279. If you poke around the net you might find it close to $250. Compare that to newegg.com's current price for
Intel Core 2 Quad Q8300 2.5GHz LGA 775 95W Quad-Core Processor Model BX80580Q8300
of $179 and is the hundred bucks or less difference really going to break the budget when you consider the overwhelming performance advantage?
I had a Q8400 before my i7 920 and it was like going from a Commodore 64 to a Cray supercomputer.
An argument against i7 is the cost of motherboards. Yes, you can easily spend $400 or much more on a superfancy mobo for it, but the question is do you need it? My mobo is Dell, so it's about as basic as it can get, and I don't OC. And I'm STILL flabbergasted by the performance. You don't HAVE to spend big money for an i7 mobo. Right now newegg.com has:
JetWay JBI-600-LF LGA 1366 Intel X58 ATX Intel Motherboard
for just $159
or your choice of
Foxconn FlamingBlade GTI LGA 1366 Intel X58 ATX Intel Motherboard
or
MSI X58M LGA 1366 Intel X58 Micro ATX Intel Motherboard
for ten bucks more. The latter is especially interesting due to the mATX form factor and the 2-way SLI/CFX and True Blu-ray Audio.
If you were absolutely stuck for a "major brand" mobo, then spend 4 extra dollars and get the
GIGABYTE GA-EX58-UD3R LGA 1366 Intel X58 ATX Intel Motherboard
which will let you do darn near anything you want that a $400 mobo will do, including some decent OC.
Even if you get a Q8300 you're going to be fairly hard pressed to get a significantly cheaper mobo than $159, so where are the savings? The cost of DDR3 has come way down, and the same HD, opticals, case, etc. can be used in almost any system.
So my advice is by all means do the i7. If you keep your eyes out for special sales, Dell has full i7 systems as low as the mid $800s. That might be a hundred or so more than you may want to budget, but believe me, even if you have to scrimp on donuts and movies for a month, it's WELL worth it!
:)
Hey Aion tower of eternity just realeased beta and my laptop Toshiba Satilite x205-s7483 is having problems running it like wite terran, bluescreen crashes but i have fixed bluescreen crashes, i have tried to overclock the vedio card 8700m Gt but still get same results but faster /FPS, and my processor is too slow for me to realy overclock the video card too much... any sugestions?
can e-mail me too cotk77338@yahoo.com
my system here:->
Windows Vista
Windows vista 32bit-OS
I'm not really sure what wite terran means, but by all means reinitialize your drive and reinstall the ORIGINAL OS that came with the laptop's CDs or DVDs. Many laptops have proprietary features or drivers that are lacking from generic Windows installations.
Hi Hal,
You are the man when it comes to explaining highly technical data to low and medium technos. Myself and many others appreciate your taking the time to give us this info as it really helps in making our computer decisions. Now onto my question if you have a moment to answer. I am a serious gamer, but do not play multiplayer on the web. I prefer just playing against the computer. First Person Shooters such as Far Cry and Crysis are my genre. I am looking into purchasing a new computer for schoolwork (yes another old timer heading back to school) and gaming. I am looking at Microtel gaming computers with Intel Core I7 Processor 920. I am looking at spending no more than $1300 and want a computer that will still be there for me in 4 years. Should I go ahead and buy a quad core now or in your experience, will a dual core still be able to handle what's coming in the next four years?
Thanks So Much
Hal, like Crystal above, im also looking to build a new computer to mainly watch movies, play some games, and school work. so is quad core better for movies or just stick with dual core?
Crystal: Thanks for your comment and your kind words. By all means the i7 series is going to future proof you until at least 2014. I wouldn't want to have a dual core as of around 2012, so you're really better off going quad. Remember to buy as much RAM as you can afford as that will give you by far the most "bang for the buck" not just in games but in all your apps. Crysis is extremely rare among games in that the software's code takes full advantage of any multi-core system to generate complex visual particle effects through its parallelization technique where various tasks, such as particle calculations, physics, sound, and others are performed in a parallel sequence. This allows one core to take over, say, physics, while another does particles, and another sound, etc. That's why you want 4 cores all humming along. Especially with the HyperThreading in your i7, you'll be throwing a full 8 effective cores at your Crysis and it will fly. Keep in mind also that Crysis will take advantage of your CPU in many cases if your GPU lags behind, so it's not necessary to go crazy with your video subsystem and sink almost a thousand bucks into a GeForce GTX 295 H2OC 1792MB! Any of the decent $150 to $250 cards will more than do the job. Have fun! :)
Zwei: What I've just mentioned to Crystal also applies here. Everyone knows that I have not gotten along with almost any CPU from AMD for a few years now, but I have to admit that if you have fairly basic requirements but want to go quad, then the just announced AMD Athlon II X4 620 at 2.6GHz with a TDP of 95W and a street price of just $99 is one heck of an entry level quad for less than roughly equivalent dual core money. See, world, I CAN congratulate the Green Team on those exceedingly rare occasions when they do something right. Thanks! :)
Very informative and interesting!
Thanks! Glad to help! :)
Hal Licino ..... I have a laptop with dual core ....
but this article is quite a helpful .....
Thanks! Glad to help!
|
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 Quad-Core Processor, 2.83 GHz, 12M L2 Cache, 1333MHz FSB, LGA775
Price: $229.94
List Price: $322.99 |
|
Intel Core 2 Duo Processor 3 GHz 1333MHz 6 MB LGA775 CPU BX80570E8400
Price: $149.99
List Price: $259.99 |
|
Intel Core i5 750 2.66GHz Quad-Core LGA1156 Desktop Processor
Price: $187.95
List Price: $250.00 |
|
Intel Core i7 860 2.8GHz Quad-Core LGA1156 Desktop Processor
Price: $271.00
List Price: $356.00 |
|
Intel Xeon Quad-Core X3220 2.4GHz LGA 775 Q6600 CPU G0
Current Bid: $149.00
|
|
Intel Core i7 920 2.66GHz CPU + ASUS Rampage II GENE
Current Bid: $560.00
|
|
INTEL CORE 2 QUAD Q6700 PROCESSOR CPU SOCKET 775 STP G0
Current Bid: $185.00
|
|
CPU Heatsink/fan Cooler For Intel Core2 LGA 775 To 3.8G
Current Bid: $6.19
|
cgull8m says:
2 years ago
Thanks a lot, it is very useful for me, I can't tell the difference, I have a dual core 2.66, before I had single one at 3.2 GHz, I can see the difference, I am able to run more programs at one time. I will keep this reference for future buying needs. Thanks.