CPU: Quad [or] Duo?

[reidthaler]

I'm still pretty confused about Quad vs Duo. What I've read and see in benchmarks is that Photoshop does better with a faster clockspeed, so for the money, that would point to Duos (E8500, 3.16 is $190 vs Q6600 for $10 less) especially when you look at 45nm (E8500) vs 65nm (Q6600), and FSB 1333MHz (E8500) vs 1066MHz (Q6600)

Does a quad core perform better overall on a computer system that still point to going with quad over a Duo? What am I missing?

Thanks!

Reid

[Jenspm]

A quad core is better than a dual core for multitasking. Unless the program is optimized to use 4 cores, a faster dual core is better for that single program. However, once you start running multiple programs at once, the performance will fall slower on a Quad than a Dual.

Therefore, if you mainly game on your PC, a fast Dual Core is the better choice, as there aren't any games that are optimized for four cores, afaik, and you rarely run too many programs while gaming. The game will usually use two cores, so it would naturally be better with higher clocks.

If, however, you want to run several programs at the same time (like me), you're better off with a quad core, as it can spread the tasks among its four cores.

[reidthaler]

My work is mostly photoshop and Lightroom. I don't run games at all.

I frequently have several programs open, but I can only do one thing at a time.

The trend is toward quad, and future versions of Photoshop will continue with quad core utilized, although benchmarks show that a faster clockspeed is more important than number of cores.

given this, would you still recommend quad?

Thanks!

Reid

[m0002a]

Anyone who doesn't scrap their current CPU's and replace them with a Intel hex-core is a wimp.

[nomoon]

I was in your shoes and I chose an 8500. I work with large databases as well as running Photoshop macros. There may be a few occasions where a quad may provide a burst of speed over a dual, but it seems that a faster dual would be faster than an equivalent cost quad for 95% of the time. The dual also uses less power, and thus would be quieter to cool.

Jason

[mkk]

I'd lean towards a quad since you're not gaming and probably not much for overclocking either. While I'm a gamer and look more intently on such benchmarks I've quite gotten the impression that heavier filter operations in Photoshop definitely scales well with additional cores. Outside filtering work you're much less likely to notice the difference anyway. Without overclocking thrown into the mix the Q6600 isn't really so tough to cool, at the same price level as an E8500.

Either way, go for 64bit Windows and 8GB of RAM. RAM is inexpensive and even with todays 32bit Photoshop that cannot access more than about 3.2GB it's a real treat for the overall system performance. The upcoming Adobe software will benefit much from the 64bit environment unless they manage some major screwup, which wouldn't beyond Adobe though.

[alecmg]

I remind you, that for "multitasking" bottleneck is not number of cores, but more often HDD or memory bandwidth.
Current generation of quads is not very appealing. I say stick with dual.

[Frez]

Toms Hardware isn't always the best resource, but to give you some quantified results rather than people's gut feelings, have a look here...

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desk ... 3,826.html

Unfortunately, they do not reveal what they did as part of the test, or what the rest of the PCs configuration was.

I also believe that the next version of photoshop has been designed to utilise multiple cores better than the current version, but I doubt whether the difference would be huge over the current version, changes tend to be evolutionary rather than revolutionary.

[Moon GT]

Photoshop CS3 seems to be pretty well optimised for quad cores:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/sh ... =3344&p=12

[stevebird]

Does anyone know if Windows XP can handle dual core and quad core as good as Windows Vista?

[thejamppa]

XP is not as good for Quads as Vista. When XP was made nobody was not even dreaming of Quad except few CPU engineers.

Vista is first Windows that can use Quads rather effectively but I'd say Windows seven is first Windows that will be optimized for multiple cores....

Quad is basicly better in Vista... in theory... but that is all dependable on programs you're using.

[KyonCoraeL]

This is a bit off topic but another key aspect you need to keep in mind while choosing between vista and XP is the amount of ram you will be instlaling on your computer because if you install 4Gb of ram you will need to use a 64-bit operating system

I would buy quads because it's productive longevity is longer. Many of my friends with dual pentium 3's have started replace their computers just a few years ago.

[m0002a]

... if you install 4Gb of ram you will need to use a 64-bit operating system...

Don't need to have 64-bit OS. A 32-bit OS will still work, but will only use 3 GB of the memory. You can always upgrade to 64-bit with the next version of Windows (beyond Vista).

[stevebird]

Thanks for the answers. I want to buy Windows XP for my new computer because I am fed up with Vista in my laptop (Sony VIO). Some programs I need to work with do not work in Vista. I had worked with XP for quite a long time and I know it is a decent system. I heard about the limitation in 32-bit systems and I chose 2 MB RAM, which should be more than enough for XP. I also chose Intel Core 2 Duo E8400. I know I can get an Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 for about the same price but I wanted to install the computer in a passive case (Zalman TNN 300) which sets a thermal limitation for the CPU to max 70W TDP (thermal design power). Max TDP of the E8400 is 65W according to Intel and max TDP of Q6600 is 105W. So I decided for the E8400. Now the E8400 has only 2 cores but I wonder if the second core would be of any use for XP.