I'm thinking about upgrading to a quad core from a dual core processor I'm currently using. Is upgrading to a quad core will give any real advantages and any performance jump from a dual core processor? I currently own an AMD Athlon 6000 X2 dual core processor. If you guys currently own a quad core processor, please give me some of your stories.

Thanks.

Yes and no. What is your computing habit as an example? There are virtually no games that can utilize a quad core. I would recommend going with a really fast dual core to be honest. But then the Q6700 is dirt cheap right now so why not go ahead? Ultimately it is your call but you will need a good OS to load balance out the CPUs. I would recommend a server based OS. XP x64 would get my vote for it. That is if you want to do it right. Vista SP1 is not bad idea either but go x64. Drivers are in a good state right now for the most part.

When I say computing habits I mean hard core multitasking. Something a dual core cant handle. The reason I went quad core is because I run a lot of ORacle apps on my machine and since they are written in Java they can be stressful on the system. Since those apps are properly multithreaded it can tax all my CPUs at an even level. Hence the quad core.

I really wish people would stop saying that.

Let me put it in plain terms. If an application--whether it be a game, image editor, Excel (yes, 2007 is multithreaded for functions) or any other application--is multithreaded it will use any and all available CPU/cores. The CPU determines which core(s) those threads will run on. Can an application developer artificially limit it to a certain number of threads (i.e. 2 threads)? Yes, but it's generally not recommended to do that, and there's no guarantee that those threads will run on Core 0 and Core 1. Plus, it's not about whether or not the single application is multithreaded or not. If you run multiple applications at once (and who doesn't?) then the additional cores will definitely help.

The price of quad core CPUs has dropped so much that it's almost a no brainer if you're building a new system. Upgrading from a dual core to a quad core is a different story though, unless you're looking for the latest architecture as well (65nm Core 2 > 45nm Core 2+SSE4, Athlon 64 > Phenom, etc).

I'm actually going through this same process right now. I'm about to upgrade my file server/domain controller/one-stop-serving-in-a-box machine and I'm looking at the Core 2 Quad Q9300. I keep flipping back and forth on whether or not to put the Q9300 in my machine and move my X6800 to the server. MHz wise the Q9300 is slower, but it's double the cores, half again as much cache and includes the newer SSE4 instructions. BUT, I plan on running Hyper-V on the server machine with severals VM's running at once so the extra cores would really help out there. Now you can see why I'm conflicted...

Thanks for the replies. Most of the time I use my computer for entertainment purposes only, mainly browsing the internet, watching videos and listening to music and some part time gaming. So I guess a quad core isn't required here?

tbh bud, cost wise, go with quad core, u dont pay that much mroe for quad, so you may as well just do it, wont effect u in a bad way at all.

Nah, if your PC already does those things without any problems there's no reason to upgrade just to get a quad-core CPU.



If he were doing a complete upgrade I'd agree with you...but he already has a dual-core setup and was wondering if just upgrading the CPU to quad-core would give him any benefits. In all likelyhood it won't for the things he mentioned he does, so why waste the money? He should wait until he's ready to do a complete upgrade.