# quad core versus dual core using linux



## Easy Rhino (Oct 27, 2008)

so these two chips are roughly the same price. 

the core 2 quad kentsfield 2.4 ghz $189.00

the core 2 duo e8400 wolfdale 3.0 ghz  $164.39

the plan is to install ubuntu and then virtualize windows xp. the general rule is when running heavy apps like a virtualization program w/windows xp to go quad core but the speed in the dual core could make a big difference.

also keep in mind the system is 4 gigs ddr800 ram. so plenty of ram to run it so i may not need the quad core.


----------



## Solaris17 (Oct 27, 2008)

Easy Rhino said:


> so these two chips are roughly the same price.
> 
> the core 2 quad kentsfield 2.4 ghz $189.00
> 
> ...



afaik wolfdales oc something crazy every kentsfeild iv seen gets to 4ghz through luck and ~3.2-3.6 avg....everywolfale iv seen hits 4Ghz like it was its job...i can even atest to this. my proc will boot at 4.5Ghz even at the highest multi. not to mention it takes almost no voltage to get their.


----------



## spearman914 (Oct 27, 2008)

Solaris17 said:


> afaik wolfdales oc something crazy every kentsfeild iv seen gets to 4ghz through luck and ~3.2-3.6 avg....everywolfale iv seen hits 4Ghz like it was its job...i can even atest to this. my proc will boot at 4.5Ghz even at the highest multi. not to mention it takes almost no voltage to get their.



Thing is he's gonna run different apps which quad cores are better at.


----------



## Solaris17 (Oct 27, 2008)

spearman914 said:


> Thing is he's gonna run different apps which quad cores are better at.



well their will be some things he needs to think about do they utilize multi cores? if so how many? 2/4/8? and are they speed sensative? will he see a diffirence in program performance between 3 and 3.5Ghz?


----------



## Easy Rhino (Oct 27, 2008)

thanks guys. as always the response time of posts is mindbending 

so i dont plan on overclocking it.  that really isnt a factor in my buying decision. true, quad core is better for running lots of programs, but my question is in regards to linux. have people had good experiences when running quad core processors with linux. does linux take full advantage of its power? if not, then i will go with a the faster dual core processor and let the 4 gigs of ram handle it.


----------



## Solaris17 (Oct 27, 2008)

Easy Rhino said:


> thanks guys. as always the response time of posts is mindbending
> 
> so i dont plan on overclocking it.  that really isnt a factor in my buying decision. true, quad core is better for running lots of programs, but my question is in regards to linux. have people had good experiences when running quad core processors with linux. does linux take full advantage of its power? if not, then i will go with a the faster dual core processor and let the 4 gigs of ram handle it.



linux uis amazing at at utilizing  them it ran like a champ when  i ahd my Q6600 in for idk say 8 hours so if oc'ing isnt a milestone point go for the quad and enjoy yourself


----------



## Easy Rhino (Oct 27, 2008)

Solaris17 said:


> linux uis amazing at at utilizing  them it ran like a champ when  i ahd my Q6600 in for idk say 8 hours so if oc'ing isnt a milestone point go for the quad and enjoy yourself



so you link that a quad core at 2.4 ghz is a better way to go with linux virtualizing windows xp then dual core at 3 ghz ??? both systems have 4 gigs of ram. 

also you think with a 380 watt 80 certified PSU the 95 watts wont be a problem with the quad?


----------



## Solaris17 (Oct 27, 2008)

Easy Rhino said:


> so you link that a quad core at 2.4 ghz is a better way to go with linux virtualizing windows xp then dual core at 3 ghz ??? both systems have 4 gigs of ram.
> 
> also you think with a 480 watt 80 certified PSU the 95 watts wont be a problem with the quad?



i think you will do better with the quad if you plan on doing serious multitasking if all your going to be doin is opening 1 VM than the dual is the way to go..as for the psu it depends on what else is in your system.


----------



## niko084 (Oct 28, 2008)

I would go for the quad, I think you will use it and a lot of linux software is taking good advantage of quads as open source FTW 

I recommended the same to my father over an e3110 *e8400 xeon version*, he built two machines one with a q6600 and one with the e3110 for a customer and said he was glad I talked him into the quad, doing lots of video/audio work in linux.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Oct 28, 2008)

thanks guys!


----------



## Pinchy (Oct 28, 2008)

380W will be fine, if you have a low end gfx card / IGP.


----------



## erocker (Oct 28, 2008)

I like the quad option though I would overclock it, but just where stock voltage would take it.  A small 200 -400mhz boost can make things much quicker without sucking up energy and creating more heat.


----------



## btarunr (Oct 28, 2008)

Just like in windows, you can lock processes to specific CPUs, (CPU affinity). With a quad-core, you can lock the VM's process to 3/4 cores.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Oct 28, 2008)

btarunr said:


> Just like in windows, you can lock processes to specific CPUs, (CPU affinity). With a quad-core, you can lock the VM's process to 3/4 cores.



awesome. well i am ordering the system tomorrow (as long as the buyer comes through.) the GPU is integrated so im not worried about wattage right away. and even down the road i would probably only get a mid-range gpu for some gaming in XP which would be virtualized in linux. in the end i will just build another system if i want to do any serious gaming. it is all a big adventure.


----------



## btarunr (Oct 28, 2008)

Easy Rhino said:


> and even down the road i would probably only get a mid-range gpu for some gaming in XP which would be virtualized in linux. in the end i will just build another system if i want to do any serious gaming. it is all a big adventure.



Gaming on the VM? I'm not sure if the OS running in the VM will have access to the GPU and its features. A VM provides hardware abstraction, it can loosely relay some OpenGL calls (provided the Linux driver is in place), but that's as far as it could go.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Oct 28, 2008)

btarunr said:


> Gaming on the VM? I'm not sure if the OS running in the VM will have access to the GPU and its features. A VM provides hardware abstraction, it can loosely relay some OpenGL calls (provided the Linux driver is in place), but that's as far as it could go.



as far as i know it can handle some decent gaming so long as the hardware drivers are present.


----------



## Benno (Oct 28, 2008)

I'd get a quad core. You'll notice a difference over dual cores running multiple things.
You'll need the ram, because once linux has used it all, it'll freeze. It doesn't delete stuff from the ram like Windows does, you have to reboot.


----------



## Wile E (Oct 28, 2008)

Easy Rhino said:


> so you link that a quad core at 2.4 ghz is a better way to go with linux virtualizing windows xp then dual core at 3 ghz ??? both systems have 4 gigs of ram.
> 
> also you think with a 380 watt 80 certified PSU the 95 watts wont be a problem with the quad?



Yes, the 2.4GHz quad is hands down better than a 3GHz dual in apps that can use the extra cores. Buy the quad.



Easy Rhino said:


> as far as i know it can handle some decent gaming so long as the hardware drivers are present.



Not gonna happen. The VM can't directly access the hardware. The better bet is to get Wine up and running, and hope the games you want to play will work well on it.


----------



## Pinchy (Oct 28, 2008)

Or, just dual boot lol.


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 28, 2008)

Quad for me, but I would probably take the Q9400 option and clock the muvvaa


----------

