Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

Resolved Question

Is the quad core really worth it?

Aug 6, 2011 2:47AM PDT

Im looking to buy a new laptop and im kinda new at the whole thing. I do want a nice laptop that i can use to run itunes, some games, and internet browsing. I cant spend more than about 900 dollors but it would be nice to spend less. Would getting a quad core prossesor help a lot with these tasks or should i get a lesser one to save the money?k

Discussion is locked

MATT33333 has chosen the best answer to their question. View answer

Best Answer

- Collapse -
GAMES.
Aug 6, 2011 12:54PM PDT

What games? Those new 3D stuff will likely blow the budget.

And those 3D games rarely tap the full power of the dual core CPUs but really hit the GPU hard.
Bob

- Collapse -
games
Aug 6, 2011 2:11PM PDT
- Collapse -
Still in review.
Aug 6, 2011 2:41PM PDT
- Collapse -
games
Aug 7, 2011 4:21AM PDT

ok thanks. Also, will that computer be able to run games like those or will it be unable? Is this a good price for a computer this power? Thanks again im kinda new at this.

- Collapse -
Looking at the GPU alone, it's no gamer machine.
Aug 7, 2011 5:26AM PDT
- Collapse -
..
Aug 7, 2011 8:06AM PDT

ok thanks

- Collapse -
Quad Core for Older Games
Sep 8, 2011 12:41AM PDT

One of the things you need to look at is if the older games you will be playing will even recognize and use all 4 cores on the cpu. Alot of "older" games only use 2 cores. As far as internet browesing and to run itunes, a quad core would be overkill. Keep in mind new games are now grabbing alot more power from the gpu instead of the cpu.

- Collapse -
Years ago I found this to be false.
Sep 8, 2011 12:56AM PDT

I had a dual CPU system early and all the rhetoric was lost on me as I enjoyed how smooth it worked. Remember that "the game" may use only 1 or 2 cores but the OS is still there so you get gains overall since the OS can do it's thing unimpeded.

I think some are writing this without having used such machines.
Bob

- Collapse -
Answer
New Laptop for $900
Aug 6, 2011 7:04AM PDT

Intel has a great tool on their website to compare processors. I would suggest doing so between any devices that come to mind.

However its important to note that one should not expect a good gaming laptop for under 12-$1400,00. If you really want a gaming machine then Desktops are ideal.

As far as your question concerning Quad Core processors I assume you mean the Core-2-Quad?. Yes, they are incredible in respects to both bang for buck and the ability to overclock. However it also depends what you're comparing in respects to the specific Quad and what other CPU (such as the Intel i3, i5, i7 or AMD XP2, Phenom, Opteron)

IMO $900 will get you a great machine for playing simple games like for example earlier Call Of Duty, W0W. But dont expect to be playing Crysis, as you're video card will most likely not perform. When it comes to "gaming laptops" Alienware is a shadow of its previous self since the Dell acquisition leaving (in my opinion) the current reigning champion of laptop gaming products: http://www.asus.com/Notebooks/Gaming_Powerhouse/G50V/

You should have no problem getting an Intel or Amd Quad laptop for $500-900. In my opinion if you arent much of a gamer and are really looking for more of a media machine then a macbook might be the right buy as you're only a few hundred dollars if that away (I dont know where you live).

IMO in your price range I would possibly suggest the following: http://www.toshiba.ca/web/product.grp?lg=en&section=1&group=1&product=9993&part=11639#spectop

- Collapse -
Answer
greetings
Sep 6, 2011 9:58AM PDT

From what i've read,multi cores shine when multitasking programs....for example,you can run a demanding game,powerfull video editing software,and ANOTHER game all at the same time and retain functionality.the fourth core would dedicate itself to your operating system.
I've logged respectable time on dual cores,and they don't seem to out perform my single..but they ARE dedicating a core to the op system,so a dual would be nice,AND cheap.I think quads,and sixes are utter overkill for most users.
I'd have to talk to someone who owns a quad core or better,AND is an advanced user who's opinion i trust.
I'm quite happy with my single core 2.4,and prioritizing ONE program.If i run a game,i kill all but the essential processes.My friend and i play rome total war alot,and our video cards are equal,but he swears my single 2.4 outshines his dual core 3.0 on it.He runs vista however,and i XP.He might have some malware slowing his up...hard to say.
I suggest older hardware cause it performs respectably,and is half the price.Quad cores are probably getting cheap since 6 cores are thee rage/.