dual vs quad core intel - TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- dual vs quad core intel

Posted by ClearWater on Jun-18-2008 21:46:

dual vs quad core intel

What do you think is the better deal... assuming these are roughly the same price, a quad core Intel Core 2 at around 2.4Ghz vs a dual core 3.14Ghz... perhaps this is bogus but I remember reading somewhere that running multiple threads of data can sometimes increase latency when it comes to audio playback

Also, anyone know how much of an impact the supposed lack of cache memory on the Quad core has?

Posted by Waza on Jun-18-2008 22:36:

i would always go for quad core i'm running quad core and its very smooth runs.

Posted by Zombie0729 on Jun-18-2008 22:36:

you sure do have a lot of questions...

i was on a dual and now onto a quad, no problems here

Posted by kevin shawn on Jun-18-2008 22:38:

Not too sure if this will help you out:

http://acapella.harmony-central.com...d.php?t=1799746

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/i...11121654AABuEsl

Go with quad core.

Posted by Subtle on Jun-18-2008 23:12:

go for Quad, buy a decent cooler and clock the Quad to 3 ghz.

Posted by davidbuhau on Jun-18-2008 23:24:

i have a quad core amd and i'm perfectly happy with it... i don't have it overclocked, and it seems to be working just fine

heh

david

Posted by Subtle on Jun-18-2008 23:27:

quote:
Originally posted by davidbuhau
i have a quad core amd and i'm perfectly happy with it... i don't have it overclocked, and it seems to be working just fine

heh

david
Yeah they run smoothly at stock, but also has a great overclocking potential.

Posted by davidbuhau on Jun-18-2008 23:37:

i just don't have enuf knowledge to do this properly, and when my sh is too slow, i just replace it

david

Posted by echosystm on Jun-19-2008 00:19:

I'd get a faster dual core if I was using FL Studio or Reason (because they have shit/no multicore support).

For any other DAW, I would get a quad core.

Posted by kevin shawn on Jun-19-2008 00:23:

quote:
Originally posted by Subtle
go for Quad, buy a decent cooler and clock the Quad to 3 ghz.

Exactly what I plan on doing with my hackintosh.

Posted by Aesthetic on Jun-19-2008 02:02:

also.. bear in mind they're the same sockets and assuming you do what i did and got a 1333 fsb'd mobo then you could just buy a quad core chip net year when they come down when intel introduces nehalem.

quote:
Originally posted by echosystm
I'd get a faster dual core if I was using FL Studio or Reason (because they have shit/no multicore support).

For any other DAW, I would get a quad core.

Posted by DeZmA on Jun-19-2008 07:29:

quote:
Originally posted by echosystm
I'd get a faster dual core if I was using FL Studio or Reason (because they have shit/no multicore support).

For any other DAW, I would get a quad core.

I'd say only with fruity since reason has a ridiculous low cpu load. My q6600 has a load of appr. 20% with a complete song.

Eventually they will get to the quad core support. Certainly with 5 and maybe even with major update.

Go for the quad, it's a beast.

Posted by ClearWater on Jun-19-2008 16:45:

i seem to have safely overclocked my 2.14 GHZ E6400 to roughly 2.8 GHz... we'll see if this means i can hold off

Posted by Leighton_Tyler on Jun-21-2008 17:42:

The more cores the better for music production for sure. If you're into games and stuff then the higher clocked dual will be better but as far as raw cpu power for production I'd go with the quad, if your host program supports it like others were saying.

Posted by djdimensions on Jun-22-2008 01:45:

i have a q6700 and a qx6850 so im on the quad core wagon and dont plan on getting off.

Posted by mysticalninja on Jun-29-2008 00:48:

i has quad core, is nice.

Posted by Eric J on Jun-29-2008 01:12:

Quad Core or Dual Dual Core. If you can afford Xeon, go with that, because it makes a difference. I have 2 Dual Core Xeon 5150 processors in my Mac Pro, and I can throw just about anything at it without problems.