Benchmarks: Gaming

So I guess you don't prefer the smoother and more seamless operation of 4 cores over 2 then?

Having run both back to back, many times, I'd take a lower clocked 4-core any day of the week, for both menial office tasks, or gaming.

Dear the world
If you are going to use Photoshop and it’s grown up filters or use a 3D programme you would do very well to get a quad CPU.
However, please make sure the software you are going to use is made to run on a multi core CPU first. If the software you need has a 64bit version you might want to use that along with a 64bit OS.
However lots of other things may not work as expected.

If however you are going to play the odd game or work on powerpoint or Word. You have no real need for a quad system. Try not to have 100 windows open at once. Remember to get lots of lovely ram for your system. A comfy chair might be a good option as you’ll find yourself waiting an extra 0.5 second or so if you have lots of things going on at once.

lol@waxdart!

I ran an E6600 when they first came out, overclocked to around 3.0 ghz. The whole system would lag under heavy Photoshop / Lightroom work, especially batch transfers, and also when video encoding.

I switched to a Q6600, and even at stock at 2.4 ghz (I normally run at 20% AI NOS) the system never fails me now - you've no idea just how intensive an application you're running now.

For an average user, stick with a dual. More and more people though will see the beenfits of a quad, and as the prices come down, more will experience it too.

I don't like the poor comparison even though its noted.

Why bother running all the benchmarks only to then say that the chipset tested is irrelevant and to use the 780G.

The main reason for me to use a quad core is so that I can play a game, pause it, start watching a video with my wife, while downloading some awsome anime fansubs at break-neck speed, as well as decompressing some old archives all at once with ZERO slow-down in any application.

seamless multi-tasking is the real benefit that is missed by choosing dual. As also mentioned if you are transcoding video to different formats to burn DVD, BD's and CD's in different resolutions for distribution to different clients/dept's etc. or generally actually USING a computer, not playing with one. Quad makes a whole lot of sense.

Also, why not opt for the old phenom X3 for the sake of this review. its a happy medium.

Very stupid article. Confuse reader.

I have a quadcore phenom 9500 and before that I had a dual core..

i've since found that with a quadcore I only need one pc to do all my tasks as it can handle encoding of video while watching tv and playing agame quite smoothly.

quadcore is definately a better choice for those users who like to do lots of things simultaneously.

I am really frustrated by this article. when i saw the title I thought it was comparing quad core to dual core solely. But no it was comparing media performance from a poor 740g chispet against intels latest but still poor p45, whilst at the same time showing how a phenom doesn't deliver, and then disguising all of this by stating opinions of how he won't use his new pc for gaming etc,(but just in case u were wondering heres some benchmarks!!!!). why mention benchmarks of gaming and blue ray cpu utilization, comparing the p45 against the crippled 740g, when remarks are made that the 780g only costs a little more and is obviously the better solution, without SHOWING THE RESULTS OF A 780G next to the P45!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

It seems to me like It was written in a biased way to make the p45 look better than what it actually is. Lets remember that the 780g has had a few revisions since it was first made and its competition at the time was the p35. Intel revised to p45, yet still failed to make a graphical processing advancement over the 780g /hd3200. But this article certainly didn't help me learn if a quad core could benefit me or not ,,, I got lost ..

Whoa,
It seems more and more people are geting fed up with the quality of good ol' Tom's hardware. Is this an indication of standards slipping at Tom's or just one-up-manship from readers?

Try editing a 1980x1080 24Mbit AVCHD file on anything less than a Quad Core and see how you get on.

The complexity, inefficiency and instability of Microsoft operating systems is one the biggest hurdles facing multi-core processors. Having said that, I think Quad Core is the option for me, and certainly the future. But there are other OS options, one's that can better exploit the hardware be it AMD or Intel.

Question about the Photoshop results: Is this software actually exploiting 4 cores effectively? Also, is it optimised for Intel rather than AMD, hardware?

Intel will also have an advantage, since the Intel chipset and newer than the AMD one used here. Seems a bit unfair, that. Why not use a slower quad-core processor and the latest AMD chipset to show just how little you need to spend in order to get decent HD/gaming performance?

This article makes no sense. What's the point in comparing an older chipset to a new one, while the replacement has already arrived? People come looking for advice at Tomshardware because they know they'll get the full story.

Another issue is that the article fails to take into account that the system Tom's building is supposed to last a long time. If so, I'd say that it makes all the more sense to go for the latest quad core, because the next versions of all the apps mentioned here will kill the advantage of the dual core. It's only a matter of a few months.

The real test would be to run about four-five processor intensive tasks simultaneuously, and then see the time taken to complete all the tasks, instead of running each app independently. That's how most people use computers.

I don't care if the Quad core doesn't play games that well, I can get a cheap graphics card for that. What matters is, will it let me play games, at the same time, encoding a video in th background, and downloading from the net at the same time. In such a situation, the quad core will rule. This article is misleading, at the very least.

last page above

why would you use an 740g any way if you even stated the above even in UK ££ thats like £10 more for an better motherboard 780g

STOP makeing reviews that are realy Not very thought out (you realy need to get some one to fact check/Proof read/get users to read it before you make an arse of the review and then post it, the SSD review this time was ok but there are 2 other reviews on the main page that makes the reviewer look stupid)

if your useing Lots windows that are open on an 4 way moitors More system ram tends to play an more fact on why the PC slows down, with XP x64 4gb ram tends to be good for that type of setup Vista 64 better off with 6gb of ram due to 700mb-1gb gone on boot up, as 2-3 users have pointed out quad core is usefull if your doing video and other tasks that require lots of cpu power that would norm peg an dual core

the information on here now is starting to be as bad as the tech News web site that i cant rember

"With 780G being as good as it is, there’s really no reason to consider 740G at this point.

AMD’s 780G is also a more fair comparison to the new G45 from Intel."

So why was the 780G chipset not tested from the start? Scared it will make the Intel look bad?
The reviews at Tom's are getting really bad now.........

Talk about a guilty editor. No wonder this article is rubbish. It is a real shame to know that author has access to literally 10's of THOUSANDS of pounds/dollars/euros worth of bleeding edge computer gear, but chooses to use a PENTIUM D. I mean FFS. why is this guy employed at a technical reviewing site when he self confessed taht he doesn't really "GET" whats so special about blazingly fast computers.

Fire this chump.

My bad a P4...... christ.

My jesus fuxing christ on a crutch mary mother of dog.

The editor answers comments on the USA site, but not here. Then, after posting that I take issue with this they are removed/hidden.

What a crock of sh!t.

Comments used to be shared across the sites, but it appears they are trying to divide and conquer.

Finally, E8500-3.16-1333-45nm or Q6700-2.66-1066-65nm for today's applications?.
Thanks.