Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili ( Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.
This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.
[http://forum.warrock.net/index.php?s...]
Click here to search for discussions with Omgili discussions search engine.
 |
Building Duo Core Vs Quad Core Advantages - War Rock Official Forums
I currently incountered problems with a new dv7t hp notebook i bought, It worked great and was a duo core 2 2.53..after sending it back i taught of fixing my old pc but i might end up building one
Whats the benifits or advantages from a duo to quad?
I can see a duo core cpu has higher speeds vs quads in same price range..But i now there is much more expensive quads then duos..
If i build a computer but mostly do nothin gon it but warrock what would you recommened me to build
i have hdd's.
Operating systems cd roms drives, power supply, i just need the motherboard memory cpu and other small parts...also need a lcd display
so what should i get a high speed duo or a quad cpu setup...
i don't have many games i want to play, this is my main game i play
i was looking at tigerdiecrt newegg and ebay for barebone kits./..
i tried looking forums but found nothing on the versus duo and quads
thanks
i live in usa, incase you ask
|
|
|
Seriously, get a quad core processor.
With a dual core processor you can run WarRock, together with some other applications.
With a quad core processor you can run WarRock together with 2 similar applications and some other small applications.
I make use of a quad core processor: I can render 2 images at the same time with Apophysis, run Internet Explorer to view the WarRock forum and ops, be online on MSN and play WarRock battlegroup without any lagg.
quad core ftw!
|
|
Quote: Seriously, get a quad core processor.
With a dual core processor you can run WarRock, together with some other applications.
With a quad core processor you can run WarRock together with 2 similar applications and some other small applications.
I make use of a quad core processor: I can render 2 images at the same time with Apophysis, run Internet Explorer to view the WarRock forum and ops, be online on MSN and play WarRock battlegroup without any lagg.
quad core ftw!
ok if i build a quad core pc, whats a good cpu to use what speed.
Is a 2.4 quad good, do i need faster...also amd or intel\
\
thanks
|
|
Quote: ok if i build a quad core pc, whats a good cpu to use what speed.
Is a 2.4 quad good, do i need faster...also amd or intel\
\
thanksQ6600
Intel, because AMD SUCKS!!
|
|
Any Q is good tbh.
Just stay away from the new Quadcore you can see HP-Dragunover's post in this section about it.
|
|
|
I would get an E5200 and overclock it,and use a powerful graphics solution,but I would definitely lean towards a quad for those looking for long term use
I would say an Intel Q9300/Q6600 though,for most people.
This post has been edited by HP-Dragunover: Sep 6 2008, 03:43 AM
|
|
|
Quote: Seriously, get a quad core processor.
With a dual core processor you can run WarRock, together with some other applications.
With a quad core processor you can run WarRock together with 2 similar applications and some other small applications.
I make use of a quad core processor: I can render 2 images at the same time with Apophysis, run Internet Explorer to view the WarRock forum and ops, be online on MSN and play WarRock battlegroup without any lagg.
quad core ftw!
i can do all of that on my e8400, i even played cod 4 and having a video ripped while we updating with outlook and msn and sidebar on and much more like avast n stuff liket hat
|
|
|
If you get Q6600 be prepared to overclock it if you want to have anything future proof in it.
This post has been edited by The Cow King: Sep 6 2008, 09:17 AM
|
|
Quote: If you get Q6600 be prepared to overclock it if you want to have anything future proof in it.
Plus the fact Q6600's are great for overclocking anyway due to fact they stay pretty cool no matter what you throw at them.
Get a Q6600 and a decent H/S and fan and you can save yourself some money that you would have spent if you went for a faster stock CPU.
|
|
Quote: Q6600
Intel, because AMD SUCKS!!
One of the few 'fanboyish' statements that is true.
I saw a article a week or so ago and AMD's highest end Phenom Quad core processor was giving worse performance than a Q6600 which is Intel's cheapest Quad core, and the Q6600 was $100 (wth my keyboards gone American again) cheaper too.
Personally I'd do one of two things nowadays, if I was building a new PC:
1.a.
Buy a cheap motherboard and dual processor/ don't buy new ones and then wait for Intel's I7 series and get a 6 core or 8 core Processor and I7 compatible motherboard.
1.b.
Wait for I7 then get a 6 Core or 8 Core & compatible Motherboard.
2.
Get a Q6600 or a Q9300 not much point on getting a Qx9770 or like unless you have a extreme gaming rig (Sic, Tri 280s or 4870 X2 OR Skulltrail Mobo)
If you don't have much money to spend then a Dual core will perform well, especially anything past a E8400, they just don't seem to have as much overclocking unlocking potential (from what I've seen the % Gain after overclocking isn't as high as with quads)
This post has been edited by callius: Sep 6 2008, 12:07 PM
|
|
|
Thanks guys, i might end up getting a basic pc build, maybe get the q6600 and a few more parts i needed...
Been a while since i last built one so i need to look at mother boards and see which is better for the processor q6600..many to pick from...im going to run xp pro then swap up to vista later
thanks guys know i now my cpu i will be using..
lol a 8 core would be nice, expensive and bad as!!!
thanks
|
|
Actually, most programs doesn't support Quad Cores, so it's pretty much useless.
Getting a Dual Core with 3GHz would easily perform better than a Quad Core with 2.4GHz in most programs and games.
In the few programs that supports Quad Cores, the Quad would be a bit better.
This post has been edited by Kaedexx: Sep 6 2008, 02:40 PM
|
|
Quote: Actually, most programs doesn't support Quad Cores, so it's pretty much useless.
Getting a Dual Core with 3GHz would easily perform better than a Quad Core with 2.4GHz in most programs and games.
In the few programs that supports Quad Cores, the Quad would be a bit better.
did u mean this for xp pro or also for vista programs, about the non supported quad core programs?
a duo will be cheaper as i compared prices
|
|
|
Quote: did u mean this for xp pro or also for vista programs, about the non supported quad core programs?
a duo will be cheaper as i compared prices
For both Vista and XP.
|
|
Quote: For both Vista and XP.
ok, well then.
Let me wait a few days, make a bit more research and determine what i get as input comes in, Anyways I do need a faster pc as my old pc and laptop are slow now, they old...
lol..
thanks for your help then, like i said I'm going to do some more reading then and see what I do
thanks
|
|
|
Get a core 2 quad Q9300 ^^ clocked on 2.50 Ghz
http://www.warrock.it/upload/img/1223408586-3398342010.jpg
I won my 1° event :D
|
|
|
Quote: Get a core 2 quad Q9300 ^^ clocked on 2.50 Ghz
Lmao, nice signature gave me an endless laugh.
|
|
Here is an article on this subject.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/e8500-...9350e,2010.html
Sign up for the EU vs N.
America ALL STAR SCRIM!
EU PLAYERS NEEDED!
http://forum.warrock.net/index.php?showtopic=128454
|
|
|
Quote: Here is an article on this subject.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/e8500-...9350e,2010.html
I wouldn't advise using that link, while it is Dual VS Quad, AMD's Quads are shoot and you won't be buying if you did buy a quad so it wouldn't really help.
|
|
Please don't bash AMD,they have their own markets,and just because it's not for games doesn't mean they aren't good.
AMD is still beating Intel in the server market,and is bringing in some very fast cores for embedded or small space application computers.
That and this all depends on what OS you are using,most *nix workstations are better at utilizing multiple cores,where windows will sit there and stubbornly load only one core down at a time.
Anywho,off topic,but tired of AMD bashing.
And no,Intel isn't bad,it's just that people don't know how to compare them by what they should be used by.
Just focus on getting a good proccessor for what you need,and a good graphics card.
WR doesn't need much >.>
|
|
|
|