lol, well weird...Using and E1200 here...Multitasking too but i don't feel lagging at all...maybe you just need a faster hdd or something...even sometime i tend to unzip a huge file (unzipping a 3.7gb file) while gaming ...well, Quad cores can be overclock but results will not be as high as those dual cores..even if not mistaken, the new i7 procs are dual cores right?but seriously it's up to you. if me, i'll pick the Q9300 due to new 45nm compare to q6600 and slight lower tdp (q6600 is around 105w while the Q9300 is around 95w)Even i'm considering getting a E8400 soon
That is usually the case but unfortunately a lot of people don't (or just don't want to) realize that.
its hard to argue about the performance and purchase decision for dual between quad cpu. there are many 50/50 reviewers out there offering different view over it. I guess you simply got to experience it yourself. anyway thanks for the link.
simultaneous multi-threading is the name for the enhanced version of hyper threading. Recycling and improving old technology, it's a common practice in...almost everywhere huh. It's good though.
We had experienced the hotness and uselessness of quad core, which is why we are telling you all these. Even real world benchmarks are telling the same story. Like I said before, quad core is only recommended when: I absolutely MUST do folding 24/7 and as fast as possible (just to maintain my ranking ) I do a lot of Video Encoding (Do video encoding at full speed and still able to do some cpu intensive task at the same time = Quad core FTW!) Not to mention for some non-practical uses like i has more cores than u 4x3.0GHz=12GHz! and my Cinebench is 2x faster than u LOL
Actually, it only has dual core, but each core truly has the hardware/capability of executing 2 threads simultaneosly, unlike P4's HyperThreading which is "fake".
Yup, I have tested a high end QX9650 before. It didn't impress me at all. It has nothing to offer over my overclocked E6850 or E8400. It's not hard to argue about the performance. It's hard facts. In games it's mostly useless since most games are utilising nothing more than 1 core, as shown in the link. Some websites are showing performance improvement, but I don't think you are using those software. We know what quad core is capable of, we know what quad core is good at, but we also know what quad core is not great at. But it's definitely hard to argue about buying decisions.
There's nothing wrong with the quad core really, it's just that parallel computing is still too much for us human to handle, and the process of rewriting application is such a PITA, until there's something equivalent to CUDA for x86 processor, most application developers will just slack off and do things the old way. IMO get a C2D and save the extra cash for the westmere processors will be a better investment plan. p.s. please correct me if there's something equivalent to CUDA for x86 processor
very easy. if you are questioning whether you should get a quad core, then quad core it's not for you. those who need it, they will just buy it. They don't have ask.
