-- Posted by jamescoleman at 8:30 am on May 26, 2008 so i have a pentium d now and i'm looking at a quad core. could yall tell me the experience you all have had with the quad core from intel? i read that it'll increase my gaming performance only if the game is made for multiple cores...is this correct? -- Posted by Dylan6405 at 8:32 am on May 26, 2008 get a dual core, its just fine nad about half the fucking price -- Posted by piemaster at 8:32 am on May 26, 2008 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. -- Posted by DJ Josh at 2:21 pm on May 26, 2008 I wouldn't waste the mulah on a quad core. I use a single core pentium 4 processor at 3.4GHz for everything and I love it. I would go duel core, a quad core seems like wasting money on something you won't use the full potential of. It's like buying a couple thousand dollar country tractor to cut grass when you live in a city block. -- Posted by jamescoleman at 7:14 pm on May 26, 2008 pentium d is a dual core and the one i have runs at 3.0 ghz i wasn't sure because i guess i would have to upgrade to quad core later on in life. -- Posted by obvious child at 12:48 am on May 27, 2008 Except that any gains from a dual to a quad will be marginal at best while the costs will be obscene. You're better off waiting till prices drop in the future and when you actually need the computing power. -- Posted by jamescoleman at 7:39 pm on May 27, 2008 well the price is going down but the thing about it is that i dont want the company that has the processors to stop selling them. -- Posted by obvious child at 12:40 am on May 28, 2008 why would they? -- Posted by jamescoleman at 4:08 am on May 28, 2008 thats what happens at newegg. a while ago...they had alot of pentium d processors and now they just have one model to sell. same with the pentium 4 processors...theres only one that they sell now. -- Posted by obvious child at 2:20 pm on May 28, 2008 Doesn't mean that you can't buy other quad cores at other places. Newegg probably stopped selling the others because their supplier agreement fell through, meaning that Newegg wasn't comfortable with the price agreement which is a good reason to keep supporting Newegg, demand the best price. That in no way means that the actual manufacture, either Intel or AMD is going to stop making Quad cores when other retailers are perfectly willing to sell you other models or sell you entire computers with quad cores. -- Posted by jamescoleman at 4:33 pm on May 28, 2008 other places are more expensive when it comes to computer hardware -- Posted by drifting at 6:33 pm on May 28, 2008 You may want to go dual first. Quad core is kinda over kill (I do have a Phenom 9600 though) but I do see some difference when Im using Photoshop, and listening to music, and have a game running in the backround. I really love it when I can play Crysis and Alt+Tab into Flock and check my email, get on LW for a little bit, respond to an IM, then get right back into the game, all with no lag. If you dont want to buy another processor in three or four years, get the quad core right now, it should be good for several years. -- Posted by obvious child at 9:27 pm on May 28, 2008 Quote: from jamescoleman at 1:33 pm on May 28, 2008 other places are more expensive when it comes to computer hardware Oh no question. However, Quad core prices have no where to go but down for the current stock. And looking at Newegg now, there are 54 different quad core processors with a few on auto-notify. Save your money. -- Posted by jamescoleman at 7:52 pm on May 29, 2008 how long do you suggest to save my money for? the quad core might be brought later one maybe a year or two? -- Posted by obvious child at 7:58 pm on May 29, 2008 Maybe two years. I really don't see the average user needing a quad core for a while. You'd be better off just throwing that $200 into a mutual fund and letting it sit for a couple years. -- Posted by jamescoleman at 3:46 am on May 30, 2008 what is your definition of an average user? i play games such as call of duty4 and battle field 2 it would be nice to have these games load faster -- Posted by obvious child at 2:58 pm on May 30, 2008 So you're willing to chuck out $250+ for possibly a few seconds less load time?   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. -- Posted by jamescoleman at 3:09 am on May 31, 2008 i'm waiting for the price to go down and its not gonna be 250 if i put in the order for the processor today. i'm just gonna wait it out and see what happens. -- Posted by MemeCat at 9:02 am on May 31, 2008 I would upgrade to a Core 2 Duo if anything. Your Pentium D is sufficient. -- Posted by allsmiles at 9:11 am on May 31, 2008 Very few games are quad core yet. Save your money and get a dual core, unless you're using your machine for something a little more serious. -- Posted by jamescoleman at 7:51 am on June 1, 2008 yea my pentium d is still good but i don't think i'll be going to a core 2 duo anytime soon 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 -- Posted by Dickij03 at 8:47 am on June 1, 2008 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.. -- Posted by jamescoleman at 11:02 am on June 1, 2008 i just gotta find a list of games that support dual and quadcore (or will) -- Posted by Dumbledor123 at 5:03 pm on June 4, 2008 If your going to get a quad make sure your mobo supports it. If it doesn't and you want to buy a mobo get one that supports the new DDR3. -- Posted by jamescoleman at 8:13 pm on June 4, 2008 my board might support ddr3 with a bios update but i know my board supports a quad core by intel -- Posted by ranman at 3:20 am on June 5, 2008 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... -- Posted by Tursi Askari at 4:07 am on June 5, 2008 Quote: from Dickij03 at 3:47 am on June 2, 2008 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. -- Posted by jamescoleman at 7:14 am on June 5, 2008 ramman: 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 -- Posted by Dumbledor123 at 7:34 am on June 13, 2008 Guys, quad cores cost about 250 dollars. I don't know where every one is saying they are super expensive. Yes there is some quad cores that cost about 500 bucks, but that is just a bit different specs. Also right now I don't think a true quad is out. True quad meaning 4 cores in one dye. So if you want to wait and buy true quad it will cost roughly 1k. When I bought my Pentium D it was 230 bucks. -- Posted by jamescoleman at 2:43 pm on June 13, 2008 well they are expensive because i don't have the money for one right now because i'm paying for school. i've seen some that are 1000 dollars. my pentium d was 150 :)