VideoHelp Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 22 of 22
Thread
  1. Member
    Join Date: Mar 2007
    Location: United States
    Search PM
    Which is better?

    Intel(R) Core(TM) 2 Duo processor E7500 [2.93GHz] or Intel(R) Core(TM) 2 Quad processor Q8200 [2.33GHz]?

    Core 2 Duo with high GHz or Core 2 Quad with low GHz?
    Quote Quote  
  2. Member Soopafresh's Avatar
    Join Date: Jan 2004
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    Depends on your software. For video encoding, Quad Core is faster as long as your software supports multi core processing. Get the quad, IMHO.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Member
    Join Date: Oct 2004
    Location: Freedonia
    Search Comp PM
    I would also advise going with the quad core.
    Quote Quote  
  4. Quad core for sure. Even if your editing software does not support it, the operating system does, so doing other tasks in multiple applications will benefit. Another example is Avid Liquid was not designed to utilize more than 2 cores, but it does utilize 4 cores while rendering.
    Quote Quote  
  5. Banned
    Join Date: Nov 2005
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by vid83
    Which is better?

    Intel(R) Core(TM) 2 Duo processor E7500 [2.93GHz] or Intel(R) Core(TM) 2 Quad processor Q8200 [2.33GHz]?

    Core 2 Duo with high GHz or Core 2 Quad with low GHz?
    i'm probably going to be the only one to say this: i vote for the E7500 for a number of reasons:

    1) neither the E7500 nor the Q8200 is anywhere near "future proof" nor is either one of them a "best buy", so i vote going with the cheaper one.

    2) the E7500 is a dual core that has 3mb L2 cache (and both cores have complete use of the full 3mb's) and uses a 1066mhz fsb and it's multiplier is 11, since the E7500 easily runs with an 1333mhz fsb it can easily be overclocked to about 3.7ghz just by setting the fsb to 1333 in the bios.

    3) the Q8200 is a quad core but uses a 1333mhz fsb and a much lower multiplier which means there is little room for overclocking. it also only has 4mb of L2 and that is actually 2x2mb since each pair of cores has 2mb L2 cache and the L2 cache of one pair of cores is mirrored in the second pair of cores.

    since the vast majority of supposedly multithreaded apps is not properly threaded i really really doubt that a quad core 2.33ghz cpu is going to be faster than a dual core 3.7ghz cpu, of the same architecture, that also has a greater amount of effective L2 cache.

    bottom line is that you can spend $140 on dual core cpu that can easily be run at 3.7ghz or you can spend $170 on a quad core that will run barely faster than it's default clock speed.

    another interesting option might be the phenom 2 X3 720 BE, it's about $145, has 3 cores, 6mb L3, default clock of 2.8ghz and an unlocked multiplier, it hits 3.3ghz very easily just by increasing the default multiplier (no need for voltage tweaks up to that point).

    at this point in time i personally wouldn't spend more than about $150 for a cpu, it's just not worth it when you consider that intel's roadmaps (and most likely amd's) point to numerous changes in the cpu landscape before the end of this year.

    my vote? the E7500 overclocked via the fsb with a decent motherboard.
    Quote Quote  
  6. Hello Ladies stiltman's Avatar
    Join Date: Jul 2003
    Location: Studio 54
    Search Comp PM
    I would get a Q6600 and overclock it to 3.6
    However it generates A LOT more heat
    tgpo famous MAC commercial, You be the judge?
    Originally Posted by jagabo
    I use the FixEverythingThat'sWrongWithThisVideo() filter. Works perfectly every time.
    Quote Quote  
  7. DVD Ninja budz's Avatar
    Join Date: Jan 2003
    Location: In the shadows.....
    Search Comp PM
    Get a Q9400 or Q9450. Yup the Q6600 generates more heat and the newer ones don't overclock very well.
    Quote Quote  
  8. Member pchan's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2003
    Location: Singapore
    Search Comp PM
    I recently upgraded my brother's Athlon to C2D E7300.
    A 2hrs video conversion took about 1hr 15min. If use Athlon, it would take 9 hrs.
    Quote Quote  
  9. Banned
    Join Date: Oct 2007
    Location: US
    Search Comp PM
    I would prefer the quad core.
    Quote Quote  
  10. Member
    Join Date: Aug 2009
    Location: Argentina
    Search Comp PM
    Hello,which is better for games and domestic applications, Core 2 Duo 3.0Ghz or Core 2 Quad 3.0Ghz ???

    THANK YOU
    Quote Quote  
  11. Member johns0's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2002
    Location: canada
    Search Comp PM
    Hmm,which is better...2x3.0ghz or 4x3.0ghz.
    I think,therefore i am a hamster.
    Quote Quote  
  12. Member
    Join Date: May 2009
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    Here are a couple of pages that can help determine what may work best for your needs.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-desktop-cpu-charts/benchmarks,60.html

    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?b=2
    Quote Quote  
  13. Member
    Join Date: Nov 2002
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    Quote Quote  
  14. Member
    Join Date: Aug 2009
    Location: Argentina
    Search Comp PM
    Yes I know, but I`m asking because I´ve read that games and applications that are not programed to work with 4 cores but with 2 seem to have a lower performance comparing with 2 cores .
    I don´t know if that´s correct I hope someone can help me...
    Anyway, thanks for your help.
    Quote Quote  
  15. Video Restorer lordsmurf's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2003
    Location: dFAQ.us/lordsmurf
    Search Comp PM
    Dual Cores work better than quads in my experience to date.
    Want my help? Ask here! (not via PM!)
    FAQs: Best Blank DiscsBest TBCsBest VCRs for captureRestore VHS
    Quote Quote  
  16. In my experience, with the same generation process at the same speed quads work better than duals. They also cost more. That's the issue.

    In cases were a single threaded app runs faster on a single core or dual core compared to a quad core the difference is typically in the 1 percent range. But the converse, a well multithreaded app on a quad is nearly twice as fast as a dual core, four times as fast as a single core.
    Quote Quote  
  17. Member ricardouk's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2005
    Location: Portugal
    Search Comp PM
    i tried FAVC on a quad core ...a Q6600 i think it was .... wow mindblowing fast with 4 instances of Quenc converting at the same time...

    what usually took more than 4 hours happened in 45 to 55 minutes, try some apps on a dual core or quad core from friends
    I love it when a plan comes together!
    Ricardo Santos
    Quote Quote  
  18. Yeah, get four monitors and play four instances of Doom at the same time!
    Quote Quote  
  19. contrarian rallynavvie's Avatar
    Join Date: Sep 2002
    Location: Minnesotan in Texas
    Search Comp PM
    If the CPUs have the same architecture, clock, and bus and the only other difference is the number of cores then the one with greater cores may have a slight performance increase when using an application if only because background processes could be handled on another core and not vying for cycles from the core that app is running on. In that case it's probably not worth the increased cost from dual to quad because you're just not utilizing it.

    However multiple cores does not equal the same increase in performance. If you have an application that is multi-threaded and run it on a dual-core CPU and a similar (according to the above) quad-core your performance isn't going to be double. I've been seeing "multi-cores" for years in the dual-socket market. In reality you're only going to see about 1.6x the performance when doubling cores, and that's on dual-socket architecture. On the same die I've heard it's slightly less, but I'm guessing not by much (1.5x vs 1.6x).

    These arguments should come down to how much you're willing to spend. As more apps become multi-threaded it might be good to position yourself with a quad-core CPU, but then the same was said of 64-bit instructions when The Athlon64 was launched.
    FB-DIMM are the real cause of global warming
    Quote Quote  
  20. Member ricardouk's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2005
    Location: Portugal
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by jagabo
    Yeah, get four monitors and play four instances of Doom at the same time!
    why dont you try it?
    I love it when a plan comes together!
    Ricardo Santos
    Quote Quote  
  21. Originally Posted by ricardouk
    Originally Posted by jagabo
    Yeah, get four monitors and play four instances of Doom at the same time!
    why dont you try it?
    I meant it as a joke, but just for kicks...

    That's four instances of DosBox all running the original Doom demo. All four were running smoothly. The one I was playing was responsive.
    Quote Quote  
  22. Member
    Join Date: Aug 2009
    Location: Argentina
    Search Comp PM
    Thank you !!!! all of you
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads