Slightly confused

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

I was just wondering I am going to build a system in the summer and a processor question keeps bugging me. I am either going to get one of these http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/specpage.html?IL-E6850 or one of these http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/specpage.html?IL-Q6600O

I am wanting a processor that is fast so am I correct in thinking that the C2D processor is the better one because it has a higher clock speed and front side bus than the quad core processor?

or do the amount of cores actually make a bigger difference?

 

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

I'd say that the quad core would be better because it is actually like having 4 processors in your system rather than the two that the dual core would offer you.

Personally I would rather have more slightly slower processors than less slightly faster ones.

Note that I am no hardware guru though! I can't even remember the last time I built, ore even looked into building a system!

 

I agree with simongrahamuk. I don't need faster; I want more things happening concurrently. Then again, it’s been forever since I’ve even built a system.

 

The Quad would seem like a reasonable processor to go for considering its like two processors in one.

 

I'm currently using a Quad Core Q6600 on this machine and it's a beast. You have the 8mb cache and VT support for virtualisation.

 

Cheers for the input guys, so even though the C2D is faster the quad core will handle more data at the same time?

So quad is better because of the larger cache and cores?

Quad it is then

 

You get the VT support in most C2D's as well as the Quad Cores.

At the moment, in terms of gaming performance there is no real benefit to having a Quad vs a Dual core system. Very few games have any multithreaded capabilty at the moment.

If on the other hand you intend to use it for Virtual Machines, Video Editing, or say Photo Editing then you would get much more use out of a Quad core system.

 

I will go virtual PCs when I do other certs and also I want a fast gaming machine and this PC I build will become my main system.

 

The MCSE is a long way off for me if I ever do it, I do plan to go certwise upto MCSA but am not sure about MCSE I need a career first though before going any further after I pass my A+.

 

How difficult would the 70-270 be without on the job experience if this was the next cert I did after my A+?

 

It depends on whether your games are optimized for a single processor or multiple processors. If multiple, you'd be better off with the quad-core. It's probably hard to say which would be better for you... Eventually, multi-processor-capable apps will be standard... so the more cores, the better.

That said, either way you go, you'll likely have a good experience. I've got a C2D running at 1.83 GHz and I haven't seen my PC as much as hiccup... absolutely no slowness whatsoever, even with multiple things going on. You'd do fine with either option.

 

70-270's on the MCSA track. I'd recommend getting your feet wet with 70-271 + 70-272 (MCDST) first.

 

If I was still without a job in IT by the time I went for my next cert would the MCDST be passable without real world experience? just with hard study and a bit of common sense? and are there any hardware exclusive certs at all? as it seems to me that hardware is my strongest point as opposed to software.

 

Absolutely ...

Just get plenty of hands on experience in your lab environment. As long as you know the product inside and out it doesn't matter whether the experience was job based or lab based.

A lot of major hardware vendors offer certification tracks. IBM and HP offer courses for their desktop and server products. In fact I've known a few IBM certified guys who earned a pretty good salary.

 

I'll do MCDST next then or at least one of the exams if I haven't got a job by then hopefully getting an MCP will enhance my prospects

 

GBL...as much I hate to admit it...the quad core would be your best bet...plenty of processor power...or you could do what I have done...build your main machine and then save up more cash to build a gaming machine...I had my main machine for a year before building my gaming machine (although technically I started buying the parts for my gaming machine around august 2007)

and also yes use ur old machine for a server...I just found out my PC I build 4yrs ago who I gave to a friend is on its last legs (so im building them a new one soon). I am getting that PC back (no way would I allow them to throw it away!!) and I will use it to make my server machine (blimey 4 computers under one roof )

But in terms of CPU mate, the quad core for sure

 

Cheers for that and the link, that looks like quite an interesting cert.

Quad core it is then