Is the Quad duo processor a real improvement?

Question

I am looking at the the specs and comparing it to the the AMD Dual core and I can't really see any realistic improvements.

Looking at the the two systems in general the Mobo's are pretty crap that support the Quad Cores... Unless you start shelling out double what you need for an equivalent AMD setup.

You can get pure SLI crossfire setups using an AMD for a fraction of the price...

Has any one done any real testing to compare the systems.. Am I right in thinking the quad core is just overated overpriced marketing gimicks using the old (you get what you pay for) to mislead people?

MY understanding is that Intel actually license a chunk of the 64 bit technology from AMD anyway... I wonder just how much the have given them.

AMD's 64 bit Technology is licensed by Intel they have rebranded it as EM64T. They also adopted AMD's short multiple pipeline architecture.

Most of the motherboards that are anything like reasonably priced are stripped bare and even use stuff like AGP adapters. And they are being touted as gaming PC's.

The fact is they are being thrown into cheap systems as a marketing tool and completely wasted as the system is full of bottle necks. It just annoys me that big PC manufacturers are ripping people off.

Answer 1

For casual users and current gaming, NO. BUT for workstations that do multitasking, run lots of multi-threaded apps and do symmetric multi-processing, a BIG YES!

Answer 2

junkmonkey is right so far Intel quad duos have 2 sets of two cores 1-2 connect on the same die and 3-4 does the same but information between the two sets is done through the FSB (front side bus).
Which is why AMD has been so slow to release their Barcelona chip because each core transfers information on the same die thus having no need for the motherboard.
Personally unless your computer is going to make you money quad cores are a waste some pre-built computers with quads only have 512MB ram which for a desktop is pathetic it really is a marketing gimmick.

Make no mistake quads are better however the real test is wether you can actually use all that processor power because if your dual cores isnt hitting 100% then two more arent going to help

Answer 3

At the moment, Quad-core processors are a bit redundant. Most users, even hardcore gamers will struggle to give the processors enough to to to really get the full performance out of them.

Quad-cores currently work in two sets of two cores - only one set is in use unless the other set is needed, so effectively the Quad-core is running as a dual-core processor, except not as efficiently. (I believe they're developing/developed ones where the cores can all be individually controlled, but that's not really relevant at the moment).

Until systems get to the point where you're really needing all 4 cores to multitask many programs at once (and the software has to be able to allow the processor to do that instead of forcing it to use a full processor) then you're better off using a Dual-core in your system. You will not see any improvement in your system until then.

Answer 4

How are the quad core mobo's "crap"? They're, for the most part, the same mobo's that support dual core. For instance, the EVGA 680i, Intel's Bad Axe, etc., etc.


Btw, Intel doesn't license anything from AMD.

Answer 5

i use a 350 MHz machine and i have no probs

Answer 6

its good for many tasks at one time but not on gaming and etc.