This coming spring I want to bulid a new pc. I have a question about a processer I don't understand. What is the difference between a dual-core processer running at 3.0ghz and a Quad-core running at 2.5ghz ? I am trying to find something that is good value long term.
You will be able to overclock the Quad to 3.0Ghz quite safely. The Quad will benefit you at the higher end of video and audio encoding and occasionally in some gaming (although Crysis for example will never take advantage of more than 2 cores). If you're worried, a Quad core processor is not four processors running at a quarter of the clock speed, it's just a more intelligent thinking system which delegates tasks with more flexibility. I would say at this stage the dual core is probably the better bet, it's more widely supported and it has the higher factory clock speed (and I would imagine it is cheaper??). Go with the Quad if you're future proof paranoid and intend on taxing your system with encoding and decoding on a regular basis. Also make sure you install a 64-bit OS to take advantage of either of these.
The intel core2 duo E8400 wolfdale as well as the E6850 Conroe are great cpu's that aren't overly expensive. There are also great cpu's which are very cheap like the E2180 which i use and the E2200/E5200 and to be honest like Twimfy said unless your doing lots of video and audio encoding then a dual core is probably better right now.
I just got my first computer upgrade since ~2001. I generally don't play "modern" games, and I still love Visual Studio 6 in all of its glory (and hell), so my Pentium 4 with 512 megs of PC133 ram was just fine. However, a popping power supply took out just about everything in my machine. So, my wife agreed to let me buy a new machine for my upcoming birthday. I ended up getting a AMD Phenom 9950 (Quad core 2.6 ghz for those not wanting to look it up). With a coupon and instant rebate, the processor cost me only $120 USD. Anyway, I struggle to find things to keep the processor busy. I have turned on all of the eye candy I can, keep oodles of apps open, and it is just way more machine than I will ever use. I honestly can't imagine what I could do to put this thing to use. The best I have come up with is running 4 instances of terragen :shrug:
Farcry 2, Crysis, Fallout 3, GTA IV. Play them because you can, otherwise I'll trade you a macbook for your rig.
I use a intel Q6600 at home overclocked from 2.4 to 2.66. Its at the very bottom of the quad range now, but its great for video editing and encoding. might ok for games but thats what consoles are for.
Well if long term value is your goal, then a Q6600 is the best value option. On virtually any decent mobo, you should be able to overclock it to 3ghz on air without the temps getting over 50c. I have mine oc'ed at 3ghz and it runs @ 100% load 24/7 (running folding) and is perfectly stable. Now that the new i7 chips are out, the Q6600 will become harder to get hold of though.
Thank you to everyone that replied. Long-term and a great gaming pc is the goal. I have a limit of how much I want to spend. The limit is $3,000 for everything. I was going with an AMD processor until yesterday. The reason behind is GTA 4 is because of the system requirments. Can someone explain to be my you can have a slower Intel but you need a faster AMD? Is this the starting of a trend that will continue ?
I think its because the Intel chips have a much larger L2 cache than AMD ones. Also the Intel cores are more efficient (i could be wrong about that) so an Intel quad is as good (if not better) than a higher clocked AMD. Dont get me wrong, I am no Intel fanboy. Its just my opinion that at the moment Intel have the better lineup. Its the opposite of what happened years ago when lower clock AMD64's were out performing higher Pentium4's.
I have used an AMD for awhile now. I like so i wanted to stick with it. But if this is something that keeps up i might go with intel.
As of right now, Intel processors are doing better than AMD processors. I've been a long time builder of systems with AMD CPU's, and they have put out some damn fine ones, but right now they are just lagging behind a little. I hope to see them get their act together soon. Anyway, I put together a computer a few months ago for a little over $2300 (this includes everything... case and internal components, monitor, speakers, mouse, keyboard, and UPS), so I would say $3000 is a good budget. I went with the Intel E8400, because as of right now PC games really don't benefit from more than two cores. I've got mine OC'd stable to 4GHz with a high quality air cooler (Zalman 9700NT), and I couldn't be happier. I run just about everything on the highest settings imaginable at 1680 x 1050, with the only exception so far being Crysis, which I run on a mix of high and very high, and I'm only using two 8800GT's.
I just wish some decent PC games would come out. Right now PC is just getting ignored for the most part. Crysis Warhead was the last game I bought, and it was just okay...pretty though!
Left 4 Dead came out not too long ago, and it's pretty damn awesome on 4 player co-op mode. It's damn hard too, definitely worth checking out.
Yeah, I did check it out, unfortunatly the amount of friends I have on 360 vs PC makes me opt for the 360 one instead. I probably will end up getting it for both sometime though, no way I'm paying full price for it on either. At least the PC one is way cheaper. Gameplay wise there seriously about the same.
Definitely man, I got it for $39.99 in store. I thought that was strange too, since it was $49.99 on steam, so I went ahead and bought it. Either way, I'm sure the 360 version is more expensive. What do 360 games retail at, $59.99?
It was on Amazon for 20$ on Black Friday but I missed it. The PC versions are always way cheaper if you buy them new. 360 games are a big stupid 60$ new, but I've only paid that maybe twice on the 50 360 games I have. I really hate how Steam charges such a big ass amount for a game that doesn't exist in physical form. They always charge a flat retail amount, it's stupid.
That's a pretty good jump. If it were my computer, I'd probably have all sorts of fun with virtual machines. 2 VMs on this computer (AMD X2 4600+, 2GB RAM) will put my CPU usage at 100%. I'll be getting a laptop with a Core 2 Duo pretty soon, though, so it's a little bit of an upgrade. Put a second hard drive in your computer, and set up a VM to act as a fileserver. That way you can access media from all over your house, and you don't have to worry about a physical computer taking up space and power (although technically your PC is probably drinking power). I'm kind of going this route, in that I'm going to be making a file server... but I'm going to use the dual-core Atom processor. Around $350 will get me the entire computer, including a CF card to boot from and a 1TB hard drive. I'm sort of a power-hippy. A computer that uses less energy than a light bulb sounds pretty "green" to me.
I remember when I went from Win98 on a Pentium Pro w/ 96mb RAM to an Athlon 2500XP & 512mb RAM w/ XP. I was amazed at how fast it booted up.
