Core 2 Duo vs. Core 2 Quad

fade_2_black · January 7th, 2009, 05:26 AM

Hey all, I know there have been discussions about CPUs in previous posts, but I havent come across a definitive answer as of yet.. I have read that some programs are better with dual cores whilst some work best with quad..
Im running PTLE 7.4 at the moment and am looking at upgrading to PTLE 8 soon, but am upgrading my computer first..

Im not sure whether I should be getting a Core 2 Duo or a Core 2 Quad.. My two main options were the E7400 Dual core 2.8GHz or the Q6600 Quad core 2.4GHz..

Also, what is the advantage of a 45 nanometer processor over a 65 nanometer?

If someone could let me know that would be great!

Thanks a lot,
Johnny

AudioGeekZine · January 7th, 2009, 11:32 AM

there's no debate, get the quad!

(q6600 owner)

Since you use PT, have you seen the D-Verb test results comparing dual to quad or i7s?
http://duc.digidesign.com/showthread.php?t=200560

gorath23 · January 7th, 2009, 01:44 PM

Well, I can't help too much (being a computer retard) but Reaper definitely has the capability to utilise all 4 cores on a Quad, something which not all Daw's can do. Oh and I love my Q6600.

kev · January 7th, 2009, 03:05 PM

Dual core V Quad : Right now you may as well have a extremely quick dual for raw power if you're on a budget as nothing is really loading them, unless you want to play crysis too. 45nm runs around 20 degrees cooler than 65nm, and is +-10% quicker than 65nm clock per clock.

Erkan · January 7th, 2009, 03:10 PM

Instead of starting a new thread, I figured I could ask here.

I've got an AMD X2 4500+ dual core CPU. Is AMD a lot worse off than Intel when it comes to sound processing? I'm kinda getting that feeling because today I got a nasty surprise. I was recording some stuff for user Morgue (his sis is gonna try laying vocals, w00t!), and at 40-45% CPU usage, I began having drop-outs and shit. I've never had drop-outs on my entire solo project I recorded last summer, and that was still the same computer... so it's very weird. The only thing I've done lately to that computer is installing Service Pack 3, which should definately not degrade my freakin' computer!

Maybe this should be broken up into two questions actually... one being: Are AMD dual cores worse than Intel dual cores?

And the other question being: What may cause these drop outs I had today, at a CPU usage that I KNOW I was able to record at last summer? (No other programs were running in the background, it was the same as last summer).

fade_2_black · January 7th, 2009, 03:39 PM

Ah awesome man, thanks for that link, had heard of that test but hadnt seen all those individual results, sounds great!

Is there any improvement (that people know of) of the newer core 2 duos with the 45 nanometer processors? Or is it just that it requires less power?

fade_2_black · January 7th, 2009, 03:41 PM

Ah, I started posting ages ago and only just posted the reply, so I didnt see your answer kev, sorry!

Also, as for SP3, Ive heard youre better off without it? Could be wrong..

kev · January 7th, 2009, 04:05 PM

SP3 is all good so far as far as i am aware

P.S if you can stretch out for a q9550 instead of a q6600 its well worth it if you are going quad.

AudioGeekZine · January 7th, 2009, 05:44 PM

The quads overclock well too

I wouldn't splurge for a faster core 2 quad, I'd jump to the i7s which for the noobs, is a quad core with hyper threading (8 cores essentially) And not much more expensive.

fade_2_black · January 12th, 2009, 02:12 AM

So.. I ended up getting (incase anyone is interested at all haha) an Intel Q8200, 2.33ghz quad core, 45nanometer. i7s over here are INSANELY expensive!

Curse9 · January 12th, 2009, 07:03 AM

nice threat! i have a question too. what about the difference between a dual core 2,66 or 2,88 of an imac and an usual q6600 in a pc?

January 7th, 2009, 05:26 AM	#1 (permalink)
fade_2_black Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Auckland, New Zealand Posts: 347	Core 2 Duo vs. Core 2 Quad Hey all, I know there have been discussions about CPUs in previous posts, but I havent come across a definitive answer as of yet.. I have read that some programs are better with dual cores whilst some work best with quad.. Im running PTLE 7.4 at the moment and am looking at upgrading to PTLE 8 soon, but am upgrading my computer first.. Im not sure whether I should be getting a Core 2 Duo or a Core 2 Quad.. My two main options were the E7400 Dual core 2.8GHz or the Q6600 Quad core 2.4GHz.. Also, what is the advantage of a 45 nanometer processor over a 65 nanometer? If someone could let me know that would be great! Thanks a lot, Johnny __________________ Guitar - BC Rich Mockingbird Special w/ Seymour Duncan Invader, Washburn CS780 w/ EMG 81 > Marshall JCM2000 TSL602. Studio - PC running XP SP3, Intel Quad-core Q8200, 4GB Ram. Pro Tools LE 8 003 control surface system w/ Music Production Toolkit, Focusrite Octopre. Waves and McDSP bundles.. SM57 x 3, SM58, Beta 52a, NT2, NT5 x 2, ddrum Pro Kick, snare, tom x 3 triggers, Roland snare trigger, several lesser known average brand mics..

January 7th, 2009, 11:32 AM	#2 (permalink)
AudioGeekZine arsehole know-it-all Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Toronto Posts: 1,103	there's no debate, get the quad! (q6600 owner) Since you use PT, have you seen the D-Verb test results comparing dual to quad or i7s? http://duc.digidesign.com/showthread.php?t=200560 __________________ Audio Geek Zine - Recording Blog - The Home Recording Show Podcast - Beat Fixx Drum quantizing service

January 7th, 2009, 01:44 PM	#3 (permalink)
gorath23 Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 625	Well, I can't help too much (being a computer retard) but Reaper definitely has the capability to utilise all 4 cores on a Quad, something which not all Daw's can do. Oh and I love my Q6600. __________________ - Studio Diary now up!

January 7th, 2009, 03:05 PM	#4 (permalink)
kev Im guybrush threepwood Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Bristol, U.K Posts: 2,627	Dual core V Quad : Right now you may as well have a extremely quick dual for raw power if you're on a budget as nothing is really loading them, unless you want to play crysis too. 45nm runs around 20 degrees cooler than 65nm, and is +-10% quicker than 65nm clock per clock. __________________ PC: Windows, Intel Q9550 @ 3.8ghz, 4GB DDR2 RAM, 1TB HDD, M-Audio 1010lt DAW: Cubendo Noise: 5150/POD XT Guitar: Palm Bay/Ibanez/Fender "I don't own a tube amp! HAHA!"

January 7th, 2009, 03:39 PM	#6 (permalink)
fade_2_black Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Auckland, New Zealand Posts: 347	Ah awesome man, thanks for that link, had heard of that test but hadnt seen all those individual results, sounds great! Is there any improvement (that people know of) of the newer core 2 duos with the 45 nanometer processors? Or is it just that it requires less power? __________________ Guitar - BC Rich Mockingbird Special w/ Seymour Duncan Invader, Washburn CS780 w/ EMG 81 > Marshall JCM2000 TSL602. Studio - PC running XP SP3, Intel Quad-core Q8200, 4GB Ram. Pro Tools LE 8 003 control surface system w/ Music Production Toolkit, Focusrite Octopre. Waves and McDSP bundles.. SM57 x 3, SM58, Beta 52a, NT2, NT5 x 2, ddrum Pro Kick, snare, tom x 3 triggers, Roland snare trigger, several lesser known average brand mics..

January 7th, 2009, 03:41 PM	#7 (permalink)
fade_2_black Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Auckland, New Zealand Posts: 347	Ah, I started posting ages ago and only just posted the reply, so I didnt see your answer kev, sorry! Also, as for SP3, Ive heard youre better off without it? Could be wrong.. __________________ Guitar - BC Rich Mockingbird Special w/ Seymour Duncan Invader, Washburn CS780 w/ EMG 81 > Marshall JCM2000 TSL602. Studio - PC running XP SP3, Intel Quad-core Q8200, 4GB Ram. Pro Tools LE 8 003 control surface system w/ Music Production Toolkit, Focusrite Octopre. Waves and McDSP bundles.. SM57 x 3, SM58, Beta 52a, NT2, NT5 x 2, ddrum Pro Kick, snare, tom x 3 triggers, Roland snare trigger, several lesser known average brand mics..

January 7th, 2009, 04:05 PM	#8 (permalink)
kev Im guybrush threepwood Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Bristol, U.K Posts: 2,627	SP3 is all good so far as far as i am aware P.S if you can stretch out for a q9550 instead of a q6600 its well worth it if you are going quad. __________________ PC: Windows, Intel Q9550 @ 3.8ghz, 4GB DDR2 RAM, 1TB HDD, M-Audio 1010lt DAW: Cubendo Noise: 5150/POD XT Guitar: Palm Bay/Ibanez/Fender "I don't own a tube amp! HAHA!" Last edited by kev : January 7th, 2009 at 04:12 PM.

January 7th, 2009, 05:44 PM	#9 (permalink)
AudioGeekZine arsehole know-it-all Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Toronto Posts: 1,103	The quads overclock well too I wouldn't splurge for a faster core 2 quad, I'd jump to the i7s which for the noobs, is a quad core with hyper threading (8 cores essentially) And not much more expensive. __________________ Audio Geek Zine - Recording Blog - The Home Recording Show Podcast - Beat Fixx Drum quantizing service

January 12th, 2009, 02:12 AM	#10 (permalink)
fade_2_black Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Auckland, New Zealand Posts: 347	So.. I ended up getting (incase anyone is interested at all haha) an Intel Q8200, 2.33ghz quad core, 45nanometer. i7s over here are INSANELY expensive! __________________ Guitar - BC Rich Mockingbird Special w/ Seymour Duncan Invader, Washburn CS780 w/ EMG 81 > Marshall JCM2000 TSL602. Studio - PC running XP SP3, Intel Quad-core Q8200, 4GB Ram. Pro Tools LE 8 003 control surface system w/ Music Production Toolkit, Focusrite Octopre. Waves and McDSP bundles.. SM57 x 3, SM58, Beta 52a, NT2, NT5 x 2, ddrum Pro Kick, snare, tom x 3 triggers, Roland snare trigger, several lesser known average brand mics..

January 12th, 2009, 07:03 AM	#11 (permalink)
Curse9 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 110	nice threat! i have a question too. what about the difference between a dual core 2,66 or 2,88 of an imac and an usual q6600 in a pc?