Quad Vs Dual processors
February 27, 2008 5:53pm CST
I heard Quad processors are only good for programs that will use all 4 processors , like photoshop and a few other programs. What would be better to get get Dual or Quad processor , i know its going to depend on what programs you use and such. I do use photoshop and a few design programs , but not a lot. Also AMD vs Intel.... I heard AMD quad processors have a manufacturing problem and only 3 of the 4 processors work , not on all the processors , but i heard it happens. What do you think?
3 people like this
28 Feb 08
I think it depends on what you are working on... If you are just using the quad processor for normal daily applications, the speed is no difference to that of a dual core or a single core... You only utilise the quad core when you are multi tasking with various applications like video conversion and playing a game...otherwise, there won't be a difference
28 Feb 08
Yes I know. So its better to be prepared for those things right? I play, chat, download and open some applications all at the same time. If I am only using one processor, it could slow down. Plus my sister is into some programmings too and open various applications.
28 Feb 08
Unless you are using 64-bit Windows or Linux, dual core processor is more than sufficient to run your applications... Well, there aren't many programs that are fully utilising the quad cores anyway....not even photoshop or other design programs....they are not utilising the four cores just yet as far as I know AMD? They are losing the race....They are coming up with odd number of processors....3, 5, 7 etc....and like you said, its likely because they can't make all the cores work... For the time being, stick to dual core since its cheaper and there's not many programs using the quad core fully
28 Feb 08
Yea that is what i figured. What is the point of Quad core , if you can't even use all 4 processors. They are a lot cheaper dual , i think that is what i will go with , but then again programs will change. So if you want to buy something , and you know you will have it for years to come possibly get quad , but then again quad will be a lot cheaper in the next few years.
• United States
18 May 08
I would stick with dual over quad for now, but I do not run very intense programs that would benefit from a quad. I could not justify the cost for the performance. I do however, prefer AMD. I have had very good luck with them and will stick with them.
15 May 08
first time im hearing of manufacturing problems with AMD, although i have seen models which are Tri-Core instead of Quad. Until most of our applications that we use on a day-to-day basis are designed to be multithreaded, the cost of going quad is just not justified for me
9 May 08
For normal office job,even single processor is good enough.However 4 intensive graphic processing and rendering as in most inhouse design company,utilizing quad processors really cut time in your job. Some rendering jobs can take hours to process. Always goes for Intel.Your AMD will overheat and one more thing, normal practice is to open the side casing to let out the heat.
29 Feb 08
Dual core and quad core processors are all the rage at the moment and both companies are advocating the need for these new processors as according to their marketing departments two processors can do more than one, and four … well, you get the point. But at the risk of repeating myself, although some things obviously need repeating, don’t expect to see any major leaps in performance from these. Two cores don’t mean twice the performance, nor do four cores quadruple the performance. Confusing? Not really, just a different game altogether, a few years ago things were clear-cut and obvious, every increase in processor clockspeed equaled better performance, or rather all software would automatically take advantage of the faster execution. So basically more MHz meant more performance, simple really. Not today though, you’d think that two processor cores running side by side would surely be faster than a single core right? And four cores working simultaneously would certainly run circles around it? Well no, only if the application that you are running is multithreaded and thus can take advantage of the extra cores, remember that about 99% of all software available today is programmed to run on a single core processor. Hence isn’t multithreaded and thus in the vast majority of cases you won’t see a speed up, as the second, third or fourth core is just sitting there idling, or handling simple operating system tasks that don’t eat up a lot of processing power in the first place. But wait a minute, you must have that backwards, dual and quad core processors speed up your operating system considerably and hence overall performance goes up. Well, no again, if running the operating system was such a resource hog and would eat up heaps and heaps of CPU-cycles then the difference between a 1GHz Pentium III and a 3GHz Dual Core processor would be astronomical wouldn’t it, well, rest assured, it isn’t. So what’s needed to get these dual and quad core processors to offer genuine leaps in performance and make us forget about single core processors altogether? Well, basically the same thing that needs to happen with 64-bit support: software needs to be written, or a whole lot less likely, rewritten, to take advantage of these extra cores. And most software we use today, that includes your favorite browser, email client, etc. is not going to see much of a speedup, if any, from these optimizations. No, for dual and quad core processors to show their strengths you need some heavy applications that can benefit from parallel execution such as video and photo editing software, games, simulation and CAD/CAM software, etc. Don’t expect the mundane office applications most of us use during the day to run any faster though. So without software support dual and quad core processors simply are not going to shine, they’ll just be a novelty.