Neither of the two are coded for multiprocessors. If you want to decrease load times, add more ram.

Now, if we were talking about say, Sins of a Solar Empire, or Supreme Commander which are specifically designed for multicore systems, that would be a different story.

Post edited at 2:59 pm on May 30, 2008 by obvious child

-------
"I give the probability of this working at zero" - Dan DeMatteo

well i do plan on using my desktop to allow me to access my files
from school and use linux while doing so but i'm still trying to figure out how to do it

If you want to go dual get something like a 8400 if you want a quad go q600 (especially the g0 if you're overclocking.)

I went from a 6400+ amd and there was a big difference, but then again i guess this is due to the better achitexture. A while ago people use to say, when multithreaded games didn't exist, that a dual would provide more performance since any background tasks are done on the second core.

Same applies now only with games optimized for 2 cores, the background tasks run on core 3 and 4. Bar that there is no improvement in things like gaming with quad over dual. And you could just get a AMD tri-core, not sure if they are out yet? someone confirm?

Saying this though my friend has a c2d @ 3.2ghz and my c2q boots up way faster than his..

-------
Skype me?: Dickij03
Msn me?: Webmaster@dickij.co.uk
Website?: Digitalwarriros.co.uk

---

Yes, your game wont run as good if it was a fast single core/dual core since many games are not made to optimize all four cores. I don't have an Intel quad core, but I have an AMD Phenom which I can multi task very well, virus scan, game, music with no hiccups.

---

Well that just isn't true...

Most newer games either have patches or already have some kind of enhancement for dual or quad core platforms... and it certainly will run faster, just about everything will run faster, than if you only had one core. COD4 I'm sure either has quad core support, or will in the near future... BF2 I'm not so sure about

In terms of performance you probably won't notice that big of a difference, games are more graphics card intensive that processor intensive. Technically speaking the processor is the bottleneck for your performance (I'm assuming you have like 2 gigs of ram) but getting a quad core won't change that bottle neck unless you have a gaming motherboard... something like ASUS, let me know some stats on your comp and I'll let you know if the quad core upgrade is worth it...

---

I got a Intel q6600 (@3.22Ghz 1.45v) and i love it tbh.

If you want to go dual get something like a 8400 if you want a quad go q600 (especially the g0 if you're overclocking.)

I went from a 6400+ amd and there was a big difference, but then again i guess this is due to the better achitexture. A while ago people use to say, when multithreaded games didn't exist, that a dual would provide more performance since any background tasks are done on the second core.

Same applies now only with games optimized for 2 cores, the background tasks run on core 3 and 4. Bar that there is no improvement in things like gaming with quad over dual. And you could just get a AMD tri-core, not sure if they are out yet? someone confirm?

 
Saying this though my friend has a c2d @ 3.2ghz and my c2q boots up way faster than his..

---

What cooling you running on the q66?

AMD are shit. Intel ftw, e7200 if you are on a budget, e8x00 if you have more money. All OC well.

-------
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.

i have a

nforce 680i sli m/b
pentium d processor at  3.0 ghz (stock heat sink)
2 gigs of ddr2 ram 800 mhz
7950 gt oc video card
2x cd burners
320 hdd sata 3gb
250 hdd sata 3gb
550 watt psu

if you wanted to know my specs