Re: Dual or Quad Core? [message #350488 is a reply to message #350470] |
Thu, 11 September 2008 11:49 data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d4c00/d4c00c5bc5e1339668eda9f53e4e3eeb6f57a9d6" alt="Go to previous message Go to previous message" data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4fa4c/4fa4c45c77288328f54dbc1905282e765682314e" alt="Go to next message Go to previous message" |
Drkpwn3r
Messages: 317 Registered: March 2004 Location: Unknown to you.
Karma:
|
Recruit |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7bf59/7bf5917fd87a6584d68056ee81807152011a5fa3" alt="172248200"
|
|
I'd probably go with the slower quad core (specifically if you use Vista). I've personally got a Dual Core processor stock @ 2.5GHz but stable overclocked @ 2.8GHz, and I'm pretty sure a slower quad core would far outperform my processor even though I may have a higher clock.
You have to consider this when buying processors these days: clocks should never be your primary consideration when buying multi-core processors. Why? Because quite simply, the actual performance you're most likely to get out of the processor is the core count multiplied by the processor's displayed speed.
So to put it simply: my 2.8GHz outputs a maximum effective performance of 5.6GHz (granted applications take advantage of it), even though it's officially rated at 2.8GHz stable.
[Updated on: Thu, 11 September 2008 11:50] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|