VegaBond

Yes Icecold, because with games now supporting both processors one would be focusing on applications and one your game.. But theres maybe a handful of games that use dual-processers... And also X64 Vista is on the 2nd disc when you buy Vista so its out


Quad core is future but not used in OS 100% yet so stick with dual until software is ready

__________________

=Sarc=

It will be better with faster RAM but it's also really expensive. Another thing to consider is that DDR2 RAM has been pretty good at overclocking. I'm overclocking my FSB to take advantage of faster RAM. The biggest difference I see is a decrease in game load times.
It sounds like that could be the problem. I honestly can't say though. It could just be Trillian that uses a lot of resources. I forget how much of a memory footprint it took when I used to use it. It's a safe bet that a multi-core processor will help out.

__________________
JO Guides & Tutorials
Team Element - It's who you game with.

AzrealDarkmoon

Trillian almost never uses more than idle software except at startup for me, although I do not use the IRC functionality of it.

Az

__________________

msdz

This was a question I was wondering about as well dual or quad cores? Looking at the link that Black V!per gave it appears IF you plan on OC'ing then the Q6600 would be the way to go and IF NOT then the E6850? Did I read that article wrong? This is the deal with myself, I plan on building a new computer within the next 4-5 months. I know plenty of things may change by then but I am looking at buying a quad core for the simple fact that I am only lucky enough to buy or build a computer every 4-5 years and with some games that may be released taking advantage of the quad cores I want the choice of being able to play them BETTER...hopefully. So, if I buy a dual core now then I will be using something definitely that will be outdated cause programs and games ARE going to eventually use multiple cores. And just think, Intel is already talking about 8 cores?!?! 2 processors on 1 MB.
Also, what I seen in comparison between the Q6600 and the E6850 not to much of a difference to worry about for gaming purposes with them both OC'ed. Now I would have liked to see a comparison of both processors without either of them being OC'ed to get a good idea of how they perform then.

__________________

=Sarc=

I don't think it matters what you buy now. It's sure to be quite obsolete in 2.5 years, maybe sooner. Although, I believe processor will be a good choice in the long run. It's the video cards that tend to slow down the system near the end of a PC's life.

It could all change since multi-threading seems to becoming more popular and a good processor could make or break a system.

__________________
JO Guides & Tutorials
Team Element - It's who you game with.

Black_V!per

Quad core is a little more future proof, but intel is going to be releasing newer Quad's pretty soon here, like proabably by the end of the month (To compete with AMD's new Barcelona release). They'll be on a newer 45nm process that should cut heat, and increase ability to overclock (As well as increase FSB and stock clock speeds at the same low price).

__________________

msdz

Sooo, maybe by the time I actually do my build, Intel or maybe even AMD will have something better? But then also the cost of the newer technology will be outrageous as usual. Already know that when I build my PC it will be old hat as soon as I order the stuff, that is the reason I would want to get the better selection so it will last longer. Of course I know also I shouldn't even be thinking about all this stuff till I actually get to the point of building a PC. I just pretty much have all things I will want/need in mind but also will keep looking at what is new that is being released before I do come to that time.

__________________

Acreo Aeneas

I think you mean to say front side bus speed not RAM speed. 1066/1333 for RAM speed would be in the ball park of DDR3 RAM not DDR2 RAM (and there's only a few mobos that support DDR3).


Is Vista coded to take advantage of dual and quad cores? Or is it a code hack like they did with XP recently?

And as many people have said already, most programs don't use more than 1 core at a time. And I haven't seen or experienced any system that divis up background processes to two cores while a foreground process runs on the other two.

__________________
Acreo_Aeneas
Former 9th MID Member