CPU Speed question (x2 vrs x4)

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

robcardiv said:

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.

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.

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.

DeaconFrost said:

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.

pparks1 said:

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.