Whenever someone considers building a new PC, the question always comes up: dual or quad?
It’s well known that games aren’t the pinnacle of multi-threaded software, understandably so. Dual core processors out-sell their quad core counterparts many times over, not to mention that Windows isn’t that great at juggling multiple cores.
Looking at local prices, a PhenomII x2 550 (3.1Ghz dual core with 6MB L3 cache) goes for between R1200 and R1300, while the Phenom II x4 945 (3.0Ghz also with 6MB L3 cache) goes for between R2600 and R2700. The argument could be made that, when speaking about a gaming PC, the extra spent money on the quad could rather be spent on a better graphics card. That ~R1300 could make the difference between a 4850 and a 4890.
So, if you only use your PC for gaming, a 3.1Ghz dual with a Radeon 4890 or Nvidia GTX 260, will give you better frames per second (FPS) than a quad with a 4850 or a GTS 250. Who only plays games on their PCs though? To anyone who does a lot of video editing or 3D rendering, the quad would be far more useful. While you are busy with other tasks, your graphics card sits there twiddling its thumbs, it’s your CPU that gets the work done, crunching those ones and zeros.
What makes things more interesting are the triple core processors. A PhenomIIx3 920 (2.8Ghz tri-core with 6MB L3 cache) can be had for between R1700-R1800.
Let’s compare identically-clocked dual, triple, and quad core processors. When encoding a song with iTunes, they all perform identically. Converting a video using MainConcept Reference shows the triple core as being 33% faster and the quad core 48% faster than the dual. In AutoDesk 3Ds MAX 2009, the quad completed rendering a 1920*1080 frame 46% faster, while the triple core was 23% faster. An AVG scan completes 42% quicker using a quad and 23% quicker using the triple. In Winrar, the quad performs 25% quicker and the triple 20% quicker.
When it comes to gaming, things are slightly different. In Crysis, the triple core performed 17.4% better, with the quad giving virtually identical results. In Left 4 Dead, the triple core performed 9.7% better, with the quad improving marginally. World in Conflict showed virtually no difference; it is only when an AVG scan is performed concurrently with the World in Conflict benchmark does the quad really shine. The triple performed 6.25% better, while the quad showed a massive 156% increase in the minimum FPS over the dual.
So when it games to gaming, the quad really isn’t necessary, a triple core would be my recommendation. Although I haven’t listed the percentage improvements, GTA IV and Far Cry 2 are two games that make use of the extra core that a triple core provides. With DirectX 11 also bringing improved multi-threading support, a triple core is the perfect middle ground if you, like me, want the best bang for your buck.
Comments
Posted On
Aug 17, 2009Posted By
Alex JelaginHowever, JP, keep in mind that while these generalizations hold true (most of the time!) in the current environment, as quad-cores approach the mainstream (such as with Core i7, for example), games developers will increasingly start leveraging that functionality. Already there are games that are multicore/thread optimized. Take, for instance, Prototype – this one displays a linear improvement in framerates as you incerase the number of threads – on my old Core2 Duo it yielded 20ish, on my office Core2 Quad it gives about 40, and on my new Core i7 it delivers 60, on the same settings and with the same graphics card (in the first and third examples – in the second example I used a better GPU, in fact.) Anno 1404 also uses much of my CPU, and certainly likes to have the extra cores (though doesn’t seem to care about the extra threads.)
So, in the (rapidly approaching!) future, multiple cores (and threads) will be making increasingly more sense… Of course, if you are prepared to gamble and have a compatible motherboard for it, you could get a triple-core AMD and hope you can unlock the fourth…
Posted On
Aug 18, 2009Posted By
JP DormehlI definitely agree with you, one must also keep in mind that in my article I was comparing identically clocked parts. Realistically, most people would be looking at a 3.1Ghz dual core, a 2.8Ghz tri and maybe a 2.6Ghz quad. You neglected to also state how the clocks of the CPUs compared in your situation.
Another thing is that getting a cheaper CPU usually means someone can get a more powerful graphics card. A theoretical person might end up with a x2 550 and a 4890, a x3 720 and a 4870 or a x4 810 with a 4850.
That would make for an interesting comparison.
Posted On
Aug 25, 2009Posted By
Alex JelaginFair enough
Personally, I am enjoying my 8 virtual cores – sometimes! (most games don’t use them yet, and I sit smugly with a 12-18% overall CPU usage, but also keenly aware of the fact that the vast majority of it is sitting idle – but I think we are just about reaching the inflection point – already more and more games are advertising “optimised for multi-core”, as opposed to previous “dual-core” mentions. Good times!)
Posted On
Aug 26, 2009Posted By
veronioAwesome data. The advice here is very helpful. I have an AMD dual core and have been considering upgrading but was not sure what to. I like the T ripple core with the better grx card option since I do designing and gaming this would certainly be the better choice for me.