midnight_rider wrote in post #12047453
okay geeks here is a question for you.
What advantages do the quad core processors hold over a dual core.
in everyday use and photo processing?
I'm still catching up, so forgive me if this was covered already.
But...
It depends on the quad core you are talking about versus the dual core you are talking about.
It also depends on what program you are running.
Certain programs can only utilize so many cores, so you could have some 100 core behemoth, but if your program that you are running is only utilized for a dual core machine than you will only be able to use 2 of your 100 cores for that program. Now, there are some advantages to this still, as you could free up 2 cores entirely to ONLY work on that program, and have the other two deal with everything else that is running, but that's more of a pain than anything.
Now, if you are running a program that can only utilize two cores, than a dual core may actually be faster (Games were a great example of this for a long time), while there were plenty of great Intel Core 2 Duo quads out there a lot of gamers still opted for chips like the E8400, despite being similar in price to a quad, it offered higher clock speeds, so since only two cores were being utilized, it basically crippled the quad core into a dual core, and since they were based off of the same architecture, the higher clocked dual core chip was faster than the crippled quad core.
Quads are typically fast enough now for games, but offer advantages when doing really intense stuff that can utilize all the cores, or when running numerous programs at once as the load can be split over the cores.
OS'es like Windows 7 really helped distribute the load better than say XP did, so that is also why more people are now moving from dual cores to quads.
(I just spent 17 hours in the car, so if some of this doesn't make sense, which it probably doesn't, let me know.)