Hi,
I'm currently thinking about upgrading my whole hardware, as I'm still running a motherboard with AGP an an old AMD 3000+ CPU.

My question now is:
What is better, an Intel Core 2 Duo or an Intel Core 2 Quad?
I mean does today's software use a Quad Core CPU efficiently?

The configuration I think about getting (shouldn't be too expensive):
Mainboard: ASUS P5K/EPU (socket 775, max 1600 Mhz FSB)
CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 (4x 2400 Mhz)
compatible Ram (2 Gig in 2x 1 Gig sticks, as I'm still running XP)
Graphics card: ATI Radeon HD4850 512MB Sapphire PCI-Express
Power Supply: a 500 W should be enough?

thanks for any hints regarding this configuration and any advice, as I'm not into hardware stuff that much.

Thanks in advance!
xarthor

@CPU:
If a Quad Core makes sense for you depends on what software you actually use. You'll only find a broad support for this on sectors like Rendering, Encoding and things like that. Games and most other pieces of software still struggle to use two cores for good and that will also change in a rather slow manner (although when talking about games it may go faster on the RTS and racing genre - don't know if you like to play those games a lot)...

On the other side when talking about games the GPU will become the bottleneck first anyway so you shouldn't worry about the CPU too much. So until you've made clear in which way you want to use your PC there hardly can be made a recommendation on this...

@Mainboard:
Although a bit more expensive I'd go for an Asus P5Q Pro featuring a more modern chipset (slightly upgraded features and less power consumption) plus a way nicer board layout...

@Power Supply:
Any quality power supply above 400W should be enough here...

Final thoughts:
Well there are two things I want to add here:
1.)
If it's possible I'd wait a bit longer because Intel will release their new "Nehalem" CPU generation which might be quite nice but features an entire new socket & chipset so you won't be able to use any of those CPUs if you buy a system now.

2.)
I'd really start to think about using an AMD system. It has quite some advantages: You can get a good mainboard and memory a bit more cheap and their CPUs aren't that bad and give you a good price performance ratio. The main advantage is that you'll be able to use new CPUs with that system for quite some time as they will be downwards compatible. That might be extremely interesting when looking at how long you've kept your current system - you could do a decent upgrade that way without buying an entirely new system...

Enjoy your meal
Toast

I just asked this question a few weeks back and just went through a major upgrade. I learned quite a bit in the process.

What you get depends on several factors. For example, as you mentioned, if you are running a 32-bit OS then you are limited to 3 GB of RAM. Therefore you won't need a motherboard that supports 16GB. However, if you are planning on going to either XP 64-bit or Vista 64-bit, then you might want to plan ahead and get a motherboard that will allow you to put a lot more RAM in it.

The Asus P5K motherboard is a great motherboard, but there are a few cautions. One is that the board is about a year old. As a result, so is the technology. I had this board in my machine about two days ago and ran into a problem. I have Vista 64-bit installed and put 8 gigs of RAM in (this board supports up to 8 gigs). However, I could never boot into Windows with 8 gigs. It would only boot in with 6. While the board itself was great, it limited me in this way. If you were ever planning on going to 8 GB of RAM then you would need to be aware of this possible problem.

The Asus P5Q, on the other hand, is a much newer and better board. It will support up to 16 GB of RAM with no problems. This is the board I am running at the moment. Currently I only have 8 GB installed, but it runs great.

Both boards are great (the P5K and the P5Q), but there are a couple of other differences to note. The P5K is an SLI board with slots for two (or three?) PCI-E cards to be run via SLI. As a result, the board has an Nvidia chipset. The P5Q is NOT an SLI board and has an Intel chipset. If you are planning on running SLI at some time in the near future (i.e. running more than one video card working together via SLI) then you don't want to get the P5Q. However, if SLI is not an issue for you, then the P5Q is a great board.

One other point of difference is the P5Q is ready for the 45nm CPUs (i.e. the Q9500, etc). So it supports both the 65nm and 45nm chips. Therefore the P5Q allows you to easily upgrade the CPU in the future should you want to. I believe the P5K only supports the 65nm CPUs. You could run the Q6600 on either board, but you would not be able to upgrade to a 45nm CPU on the P5K.

As far as your power supply, what you get will depend on several factors, especially your video card. I purchased one of those Nvidia 9800 GX2 cards and a 500 watt power supply was not really enough. I currently have 850 watts. Getting a big power supply won't hurt and it will allow you to easily upgrade other components in your system should you need to (i.e. bigger video cards, faster RAM, etc). If the power supply is too small then it can cause a slow down in your system (RAM can run more slowly, etc). So getting a decent power supply is a must. I would think that 500 watts is a minimum these days.

the Q6600 is a great CPU and they say it can be overclocked very nicely. It has a nice cache (8 mb) but is a bit slower than some of the 45nm CPUs. However, my previous CPU was a PIV 3.2 GHz and I can safely say that the Q6600 (my current CPU) is blazingly fast in comparison. I am very happy with it. Get a good heat sink to keep it cool. In fact, fans for everything (even your video card) and your system will run well.

As far as RAM is concerned: RAM is fairly cheap these days. If you are running a 32-bit OS then go ahead and get 3 GB instead of two. Why not? It will make a difference. If you get the P5K then it can take up to 2GB sticks and has four DIMM slots (pay attention to the problem I noted above, though). You can run three sticks of 1 GB each without a problem with this board. Two sticks will work, but with the fairly low price of RAM, why not add the extra stick?

I cannot talk about the video card you have selected because I have been an Nvidia user since the beginning and have never had an ATI card. I have heard good things about that card, though. The 9800 GX2 that I have is a great card because it is basically two cards in one (two GPUs and 1 GB of RAM). As a result, I was able to easily move around over 9 million polygons in my 3D application with my current set up while I was capping off around 250,000 with my previous one. The 9800 GX2 allows you to run in SLI mode (i.e. both chips and RAM powering one monitor) or separate them to run two monitors. I tried separating them to see how much slower things were in my 3D app and found that I was getting slow downs at about 2 million polygons. Somehow this card is significantly faster (2 million vs. 9 million) when both chips work together. I am telling you this because, whatever video card you get, do your research because it can drastically affect realtime 3D performance.

Well, I hope this has helped somehow.

Well that unfortunately is a wide spread rumor which is not true. When using just one graphics card you'll rarely need more than 400-450W (that excludes those two chips on one PCB cards because they of course have a higher power consumption too just as the same disadvantages of such dual combos). The only thing you have to take care of is to actually use a quality power supply and not like let's say one from LC Power who really produce quite a lot of poor supplies. I for example have a Phenom 9850 with a HD4870 running with "just" a Seasonic S12-430 (-> 430 watts) and it's all fine. If you want to know some numbers of how much an insane high-end and overclocked system needs just look here:
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/hardw...istungsaufnahme

When talking about recommendations for power supplies I'd go for either be quiet's E5 series, Seasonic's S12 series or Enermax's 82+ series. They all are of very good quality, have a high efficency and run very silent...

Enjoy your meal
Toast

Notice that the ATI 4850 (the card that Xarthor said he was looking to get) was going to consume 290 at IDLE according to the link you provided. My card (Nvidia 9800 GX2) requires a 500 watt power supply (according to the specs for the card). More than the video card will draw power, btw. So even 290 is quite a bit (at idle at that). Also, if Xarthor plans to upgrade his video card or other components at a later date he may find that he needs a bigger power supply. If so, then he spends more money because he has to replace the one he already has (if he purchases something now that is less than 500 watts). Also, RAM can slow down if the power supply is not quite sufficient for the system. More RAM: more power draw. It cannot hurt to get a larger power supply and the price difference is not always that great. I was not suggesting a 1200 watt power supply, but 500 watts or better.

because ram banks should be equipped symmetrically to take advantage of the dual channel architecture.

power undersupply won't make your system slower but unstable (random restarts and such things).



i would also go for a quad core cpu. i recently got a q6700 and it's great. not only for rendering and video encoding but also for games. for example physics (like newton) often can make use of multiple cores.

(i also only have a 450 watt power supply.)

Ehm, no you must have misread something - it's 290 under load and 157 when idling. Also remember that on the one side the test system consist of a Core 2 Extreme QX9770 clocked @4GHz (!) and on the other side the given values already include the power supplie's inefficency (so you have to subtract quite a bunch to get the REAL consumption)...


Well my recommendation would be around 450 watt - to go up one step to 500 also woulnd't be a disaster but more than that would be quite a waste (because of the reserves you now see it has)...


Well RAM really has a tiny consumption - regular modules should take like 2-3 watt each so nothing to worry about...

Enjoy your meal
Toast

For stability reasons I would still recommend a power supply of about 500-750Watt. A HD4870 and Q6600 is a different story than with a Phenom 9850 (a processor I wouldn't recommend as it's not quite as fast as Intel's competitor).

As far as mainboard goes, you'll have to think about whether you want to jump on the DDR3 bandwagon any time soon. The newer RAM is worth it in terms of performance, however it's mad expensive to get even just 4 Gb in comparison to DDR2 ram.

I personally wouldn't bother buying a Vista 64-bit OS, but word has it it works better and better in terms of programs supporting 64bit.

The statement that games still struggle with dual cores and quad cores is total nonsense by the way. All Xbox360, PS3 games and just about every PC game released after 2006 are able to handle dual cores and quad cores just fine, taking full advantage of them. They really use multi cores more and more effectively, some games do this better than others, but you'll notice heaps of difference between a Quad Core running Crysis and Dual Core running Crysis... In fact there's usually a massive 40% to 60% increase of performance. Price-wise you can't go wrong with a Q6600 or newer quad core either...

Cheers

I've seen higher (depending on where you look). It depends on the sticks, the amount of memory per stick, etc. But, you are correct, it is not a great deal. However, the CPU needs power as well (duh!). The Q6600 can require 100 watts (or more) under a heavy load (not at idle). If you are running something heavy (like a decent 3D game, for example) and you have both the video card pumping and the CPU, then you begin to draw some serious watts. Add to this the RAM (as previously mentioned) and other little things that are drawing power and it all adds up.



From what I have read (and from talking to a few tech guys) it can. For example, using the Windows Vista Windows Experience Index we were able to bump the number upward from 4.6 to 5.0 on a particular PC by installing a larger power supply. The reason for he first number (4.6) was due to RAM speed (the Windows Experience Index gives the overall number based on the lowest number ... in this case the RAM was the lowest at 4.6).



Yes, you are correct and two of them would be used in parallel. He could, if he wanted to, install two 1 GB sticks (in parallel) and two 512 MB sticks (in parallel). This would give him the three gigs and take advantage of the dual architecture as well.