Thanks, Greg. I think you've laid that down pretty well for me. Mostly,
I won't benefit from C2Q!
Greg Sevart wrote:
I went from a C2D to a C2Q, both clocked at 3.2GHz. The only two differences
I notice (as expected) are that my video encodes are significantly faster
(H.264 HD capture encodes, specifically), and running multiple VMs takes a
little less toll on the host. As I said, this is pretty much what I
expected.
In most scenarios, though, the argument is between a faster-clocked DC and a
lower-clocked QC. Unless you're specifically doing things that benefit from
massive parallelism, the higher-clocked DC will be almost universally
faster. However, with multi-core processors having become ubiquitous, it's
likely only a matter of time before more mainstream software is optimized to
benefit from the boosted parallelism modern processors offer.
Greg
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:hardware-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anthony Q. Martin
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 6:00 AM
To: The Hardware List
Subject: [H] Quad vs Dual Core Processors?
Ok...if you're going to drop a bit of coin (notice I said a bit) for a
new box, is it better to go quad or dual core? Anyone have any
real-world experience? Thx.
