# Duo Core vs Quad Core



## MarcoVest (May 16, 2006)

I am building a new intradaytrading machine that will run 1 primary application and 2 seconday app’s utilizing streaming realtime data . The primary app is multithreading using multiprocessors but on a couple critical processes use single threads utilizing single core. Speed is important for the primary application. I have got a couple questions. 

When a Core 2 Duo (Dual Core) or Core 2 Quad (Quad Core) stipulates a clock rating, is that for each core or cumulative for all cores? When applications are processed, are cores accessed equally or on demand, ie, one core is fully utilized, then second core, etc? With my application above, is it more important to look at individual core clock speed or number of cores? I am trying to decide between a Core 2 Duo E6850 Conroe 3.0GHz FSB1333MHz 4Mb Shared Cache and Core 2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield 2.4GHz FSB1066MHz 2x4Mb Cache.

:4-dontknoThanks.


----------



## tosh9i (Aug 3, 2006)

Is this "application" you're talking about designed to work with quadcores? Today, there are hardly any programs that "know how to" work with quadcores.

Can someone post that link that leads to a chart that compares the speed of quadcores and dualcores, I was unable to find it.


----------



## scharnhorst (Apr 6, 2007)

I found this http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3038&p=8
IMO i say get the q6600, to me they are fantastic, outperformed my expectations by miles. But the fact is if your running a multithreaded appliccation and two other single threads the 4 cores is a must. Two cores will be used for those two single apps and another two for that multithreaded app = 4.8ghz. 
If you think about the reverse using that for a e6850, you have one 3ghz core probably focusing on your main app and another core balancing between the other two apps. This means your main gets 3ghz and the other two get 1.5ghz. simple math really don't even need to bring up the fact that quad core would be better for the future


----------



## TheMatt (May 9, 2006)

Right now the E6850 is the better choice, but what I look for in Intel dual and quad cores is the fastest possible FSB since that is how all the cores communicate. The 1333 MHz FSB will actually make a difference over the 1066 MHz FSB even if the core speeds are the same. If you want the Q6600, get a good board and overclock it from a 266 MHz FSB to a 333 MHz FSB. That will boost you up to 3 GHz core/1333 MHz FSB.


----------



## linderman (May 20, 2005)

seeing as this is a "professional" machine and not a "play station" I would get the highest quad you can afford / Scarn is correct ray:


two cores will be used to run your main mutli threaded application

that leaves two other cores to run the other apps

right now, the vast majority of software can only really use two cores, but when you open multiple programs thats where the quad takes over


----------



## scharnhorst (Apr 6, 2007)

If by some miracle the q6600 does not live upto your expectations buy a better heatsink fan and do an easy and quick overclock to 3ghz. Just think you'll be running at 12ghz theoretically


----------



## linderman (May 20, 2005)

VERY theoretically :wink:


----------



## scharnhorst (Apr 6, 2007)

Just really cool to say shocks the hell out of people


----------



## TheMatt (May 9, 2006)

linderman said:


> seeing as this is a "professional" machine and not a "play station" I would get the highest quad you can afford / Scarn is correct ray:
> 
> 
> two cores will be used to run your main mutli threaded application
> ...


OK, I missed that this is a workstation. In that case I agree that the Q6600 is a better choice. With a quality motherboard and heatsink you should be able to reach 3.0 GHz/1333 MHz FSB and be stable.


----------



## Nik00117 (Jan 8, 2007)

I agree for the apps your refering to quad is the way to go. Good HS as well and OC if you need it.


----------

