CPU Speed question (x2 vrs x4)

[robcardiv]

If I buy a 3ghz CPU with Dual core or quad core
is that 3ghz process power devided between cores ? or multiplied by cores?
Would a quad core 3ghz chip be like running 4 x 3ghz chips
and a dual core be like running 2x 3ghz chips?
or is it a total of 3ghz split between the 2 and 4 cores ?
Im just trying to get a realitive power difference between dual core and quad core.
Im pretty sure its just a single ghz devided into the cores, 3ghz total, no matter how many cores. but i figured id ask in case I was wrong.

I own gta4 on a dual core 2.7ghz CPU and it runs pathetically, I may never buy rockstar crap again because of it.

Wasnt sure just how important upgrading to x4 over this x2 I have, or if i should just get a x2.

or should I stop what im thinking and go with Quad core no matter what?

A dual core 3.0 ghz would be stronger than a 2.8 ghz quad core right?

ASRock > Products > N61P-S
sorry about multi posts. Im running this mother board.
ASRock > Products > N61P-S > CPU Support List
and this is the list of CPUs it can run with.

Im trying to decide between higher GHZ or quad cores.
Also, im not sure which bios version im running yet, it looks like id have to flash the bios before some of these chips work maybe.

 

[sygnus21]

Not really. A duo core is 2 processors whereas a quad core is 4 processors. In that respect you can do twice as much with the quad core as you can a duo core.

Yeah in single apps the 3gig is faster, but in multi-tasking the quad core is the better chip.

"Would a quad core 3ghz chip be like running 4 x 3ghz chips"

Basically yes.

Eidt: Have a look through this: Intel Core - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ignatzatsonic]

Would a quad core 3ghz chip be like running 4 x 3ghz chips
and a dual core be like running 2x 3ghz chips?
or is it a total of 3ghz split between the 2 and 4 cores ?

No, the total is not split between the cores. Each core can run at up to 3 ghz.

But a quad core 3 ghz CPU isn't likely to do a given job twice as fast as a dual core 3 ghz CPU.

For some tasks, a dual core 3.2 ghz CPU would be "faster" than a quad core 3.0 ghz CPU. For other tasks, the quad core would complete the job sooner.

It depends on what software you are using---what specific task you are doing--what game you are playing, etc.

The trend in CPUs is toward 4 or more cores and away from 2 cores. If in doubt, I would go to 4 cores as future software is more likely to be able to take advantage of 4 cores. But if you have a special task or game that you use a lot, you might want to investigate if that particular task or game can take advantage of 4 cores. Some applications perform best on a higher ghz CPU, regardless of the number of cores.

 

[DeaconFrost]

As mentioned, it basically comes down to what software you plan to use on the system. Then it depends on the cost difference between the processors and if it is worth it to you. In your example, if the cache and speeds are identical per core, then a software app that can only utilize two cores would run nearly identical on both processors. If it was quad-core aware, then it would be much faster on the quad core.

 

[badger906]

the more cores the better! back in the day i went from a core2duo e6600 to a q6600 and the difference in gaming was night and day, and in general. even though they had the same clock speed the quad was just in a different league.

if you can afford the quad get the quad!

 

[DeaconFrost]

That would be true if and only if you had a game that was specifically quad core aware. Those are few and far between, as far as I know, but that may be changing as of now. In a game that wasn't designed for multi-cores, you wouldn't see any difference at all.

 

[pparks1]

Give this a read, it's not always as clear and simple as "more is always better".
PC Gaming 101: Is Quad-Core Better for Gaming than Dual-Core? | GameFront

In general, more cores is better, especially when your application or game takes advantage of more cores. But if the game can only address 2 cores, it's best to have 2 faster cores, than 4 slower cores for that particular game.

 

[sygnus21]

That would be true if and only if you had a game that was specifically quad core aware. Those are few and far between, as far as I know, but that may be changing as of now. In a game that wasn't designed for multi-cores, you wouldn't see any difference at all.

Correct, a lot of games that were out, or shortly released thereafter when the multicores started arriving didn't take advantage of them; in fact some games didn't like them.

However most games released now do take advantage of them, or at least run without issue, seeing how most processors today are multicore.

 

[sygnus21]

In general, more cores is better, especially when your application or game takes advantage of more cores. But if the game can only address 2 cores, it's best to have 2 faster cores, than 4 slower cores for that particular game.

You can always disable the extra cores through BIOS, Windows, or Game/software tweaks.

Personally though I'd get a quad core if I were buying a processor today. Consider what processor (speed) was out when said game game you're worried about came out. Todays processors are much more powerful then yesterday's speed demons, even at "slower" clock speeds.

 

[badger906]

the game i was playing was crysis, that ate all you could throw at it!

 

[pparks1]

You can always disable the extra cores through BIOS, Windows, or Game/software tweaks.

Disabling the extra cores won't make the remaining ones faster.

Personally though I'd get a quad core if I were buying a processor today.

I would too...and I did 2+ years ago myself. Reason being, I do more than just game and I do run apps which take advantage of more cores. And newer games are making use of 4 cores these days.

 

[sygnus21]

You can always disable the extra cores through BIOS, Windows, or Game/software tweaks.

Disabling the extra cores won't make the remaining ones faster.

really? :sarc: - Well I supposed I should have added that note for clearification

Anyway what these tweaks do do is allow the system to show the processor as one core, allowing some older games to run better (supposedly). I've never used this tweak myself, nor would I recommend it as it’s just decreasing the efficiency of the processor. However If you’re really struggling with an older game that doesn’t support a multicore processor, this is "said" to work, but….

Personally though I'd get a quad core if I were buying a processor today.

I would too...and I did 2+ years ago myself. Reason being, I do more than just game and I do run apps which take advantage of more cores. And newer games are making use of 4 cores these days.

Agree....

Anyway yeah, quads are the way to go as they are more efficient than duo cores.

 

[whs]

My experience is that for what is usually referred to as "office applications" my higher clocked duo core (AMD 2.9GHz) is faster than my Q6600 quad at 2.4GHz. But with e.g. video editing or conversion, the quad has the upper hand. But my i7 beats them all. And I think a lot depends on the programs you are running - many were not designed for quads or even more cores.

Stiil, if I were to buy a new system now, I would get as many cores as I could afford.

 

[sygnus21]

Well said whs.

 

[whs]

Thanks