Quad Core vs. Dual Core

Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
517
Location
Vancouver, BC
I'm building a PC for myself, and the most difficult task it will probably have to perform is heavy Adobe Lightroom use.

Does Lightroom perform better running on a dual core with a higher clock speed ( i5 Dual Core w/hyperthreading 3.2GHz ) or quad core with lower clock speed ( i5 Quad Core 2.8GHz)?

Both running on an LGA1156 Motherboard. Thanks
 
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
831
Location
S. WI
I'd go with the quad core. Even with a lower clock speed it's supposed to be faster than a slightly faster clock speed dual core.
 
Joined
Apr 6, 2009
Messages
1,112
Location
Jacksonville & Melbourne
instead of 1156, get a 1155 sandy bridge chip like the 2500k an board to go with it. the sandy bridges have great OC ability especially the k chips. get a good cooler an you can hit 4.2-4,5 ghz easy.
 
Joined
Oct 22, 2008
Messages
1,693
Location
Dalton, GA
I agree with rp it is faster that the dual core I just did a rebuild and run a AMD Phenom 2 965.. OC is not good aofr any system I dont care who makes it, its like overtuning a car yea itll run faster but will shorten lifespan of it in this case the processor. :)
 
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Messages
2,434
Location
Bournemouth, UK
instead of 1156, get a 1155 sandy bridge chip like the 2500k an board to go with it. the sandy bridges have great OC ability especially the k chips. get a good cooler an you can hit 4.2-4,5 ghz easy.
that is what I would go with (when I get round to building the next PC) - there's some threads in the forum about it and also search for 2500k overclocking / tomshardware I think has some good info on it
 
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
6,037
Location
Upstate SC
Running LR specifically, more cores are ALWAYS better, but as far as a huge difference - I'm not so sure. I'm running LR3 on an older core2 duo at 2.3ghz. With 6GB RAM where I see things slow down is when importing from the card.

That said, any time I move image files around, it peggs the processors at least momentarily. Obviously, more cores to share the load and running at a higher clock speed would boost things along nicely.

Also, anything video related really keeps two processors at their limit. Remember - the closer to their set speed limit the processors run, the hotter they get. The heat is what kills electronics over time, so cooling is crucial. Also, more processors share the load and keep clock speeds running lower = cooler.

So, if building from scratch, and assuming you have a functional system now - I might recommend waiting another month or so and seeing what the next gen processors are going to offer. The next sockets will be available which will put current 1366 and the like two generations back. That'll afford good deals, but upgrading in two years will be tough.

If you're upgrading a current system and that's the mobo you already have, stuff as many fast processing cores as you can in there! Try to find four cores running a little above 3ghz, put a decent aftermarket cooler on it and push it to 4ghz. Do that and you won't need an upgrade for quite a while. 3.2ghz to 4.0ghz isn't a huge overclock, and with decent cooling it shouldn't have any real affect on longevity. Pushing a wider span will require liquid cooling and more problems are likely.

That's what I an to do - build my box around 6 cores running at 4ghz. If I can afford it at the time, I'm getting an evga sr2 mobo and stuffing two 6 core processors in it! Then again, the new chips will be out requiring new sockets, so I'm keeping an open mind to see what's available then...
 
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
517
Location
Vancouver, BC
Running LR specifically, more cores are ALWAYS better, but as far as a huge difference - I'm not so sure. I'm running LR3 on an older core2 duo at 2.3ghz. With 6GB RAM where I see things slow down is when importing from the card.
Thanks, it was LR requirements I was most interested in and I will be running at least 8GB RAM

Remember - the closer to their set speed limit the processors run, the hotter they get. The heat is what kills electronics over time, so cooling is crucial. Also, more processors share the load and keep clock speeds running lower = cooler.
Define crucial cooling :smile: My PSU will be a Crucial 650W unit, and a good CPU cooler... other than case fans anything else needed?

So, if building from scratch, and assuming you have a functional system now - I might recommend waiting another month or so and seeing what the next gen processors are going to offer. The next sockets will be available which will put current 1366 and the like two generations back. That'll afford good deals, but upgrading in two years will be tough.
I thought about that, but that will raise the price considerably, and not sure that I will see that a big a performance increase if using LR
 
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
863
Location
Bronx,NY
I'm building a PC for myself, and the most difficult task it will probably have to perform is heavy Adobe Lightroom use.

Does Lightroom perform better running on a dual core with a higher clock speed ( i5 Dual Core w/hyperthreading 3.2GHz ) or quad core with lower clock speed ( i5 Quad Core 2.8GHz)?

Both running on an LGA1156 Motherboard. Thanks
Quad core all the way
 
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
6,037
Location
Upstate SC
Thanks, it was LR requirements I was most interested in and I will be running at least 8GB RAM



Define crucial cooling :smile: My PSU will be a Crucial 650W unit, and a good CPU cooler... other than case fans anything else needed?



I thought about that, but that will raise the price considerably, and not sure that I will see that a big a performance increase if using LR
Allan, the only thing I'd consider in your case might be a more powerful supply. If you plan to add a (decent) dedicated video card, you'll be getting near that 650's limit. Using an 800 watt supply wouldn't run any warmer unless you start pushing it, and the cost difference should be minimal. PSUs don't start getting pricey until you break the 850 watt barrier, and even then it's the 1000w plus units that routinely run over $150 (USD). Power is one of those things you're better off with too much of than too little. If you won't be using a card (or are using a really modest one), a bigger PSU won't be necessary. If you ever upgrade the card, though, you might have issues. some of the slightly above midgrade cards need 350-400 watts, so you can see where those numbers add up quickly...

As far as cooling, if you push your clock speed up about 20%(ish), a good air cooler (with a fan) should be sufficient. It's when you start going to 33% and beyond that liquid cooling becomes necessary. A 3.2ghz running at or near 4ghz would be ok, but start pushing it over 4.4ghz, and it'll run too hot. It'll also be pretty unstable (comparatively), and really into theoretical geeky spec bragging rights, not actual productivity. These processors are intentionally clocked down to both keep them stable and make the more expensive versions seem more desirable. The Core i7 920 is a good example. It can be OC'd to run as fast as the Extreme 970, 980, and 990s (but you lose two cores). It costs less than a third the money, though! I should add - if you're going to run the processor at it's stock speed, a passive cooler should be fine. If you will OC, even a little, get a cooler with a built in fan. Make sure you use a decent coupling compound like Arctic Silver. Like I said, liquid cooling isn't necessary unless you're pushing your processor WAY past it's factory clock speed.
 
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Messages
2,434
Location
Bournemouth, UK
3.2GHz seems 14% faster than 2.8GHz, however four cores seems 100% faster than two cores.

The benchmarks surely will be the best guide (should be double):
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php
it might be double but could be a lot less for 'real world' applications, it depends on how much the software is able to utlise the extra cores, some software (and/or the underlying problem space) is not able to split up the workload efficiently

this http://www.dslrism.com/v1/quadcore.aspx (though it's not that current) suggests LR does/can make use of the extra cores on certain tasks

edit - found this - possibly useful http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/846756
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
4,830
Location
Newcastle, Wa
For the same price, you can get the 1155 socket i5-2400 which is significantly faster than a i5 3.2 1156. I would not go with a 1156 socket motherboard as it is hitting end of life right now. According to Wayne's link, the i5-2400 also appears to be the best bang for the buck right now.

Edit: correction, I assume for an 1156 i5 quad you are looking at the i5-760? The i5-2400 is faster and cheaper.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
483
Location
Ronkonkoma, NY
For the same price, you can get the 1155 socket i5-2400 which is significantly faster than a i5 3.2 1156. I would not go with a 1156 socket motherboard as it is hitting end of life right now. According to Wayne's link, the i5-2400 also appears to be the best bang for the buck right now.

Edit: correction, I assume for an 1156 i5 quad you are looking at the i5-760? The i5-2400 is faster and cheaper.
This. I highly recommend you (the OP) go socket 1155 CPU's now. The trade off's we used to have between slower quad vs faster dual core have largely been reduced due to modern CPU's turbo boost ability. When running only one or two cores hard the CPU can clock itself way up. It gives you the best of both worlds really. High speeds for single threaded apps, but still 4 cores when you need them. For the money the new 1155 chips outperform the previous generation handily.

i5-2400 is an excellent choice and keeps budget down. i5-2500k if you want to overclock...which has never been easier than it is with these new chips.
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2005
Messages
5,963
Location
SF Bay Area, California
Power is one of those things you're better off with too much of than too little. If you won't be using a card (or are using a really modest one), a bigger PSU won't be necessary. If you ever upgrade the card, though, you might have issues. some of the slightly above midgrade cards need 350-400 watts, so you can see where those numbers add up quickly...
I must agree.
I just upgraded my 2 year old system (AMD 940 with 8 GB memory), the one I use for video.
I added a Corsair TX850 power supply(love how quiet it is).
My new video card, EVGA GTX 570, wouldn't fit in my case so that needed replacing too.
This is the case I used which has an e_Sata port on the front.
http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0334155

Now I'm ready to rock and roll with CS 5.5.
I'll upgrade the processor, memory and mother board when new chips become available later this year.
Don't you just love it when they change the mother board sockets with each new chip!

Good luck in your adventure!

Virginia
aka beaucamera
 
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
517
Location
Vancouver, BC
wow... thanks to everyone that responded, I never expected to get this many replies :smile:

Thanks for the advice, I've decided to go with the 1155 and the i5 2500K chip.

I just bought a Corsair TX650 PSU for an upgrade that will not be happening so I will be using that. I'm not a gamer, and don't plan on overclocking... at least for now.

I will be getting a separate video card, just not sure which one but nothing too fancy.
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom