Member Avatar for bradc1988

So I'm building a my first build and I'm not sure which CPU to get.

I want it to be something that will last ages and still be decent in the long run so that's why I'm thinking of the quad, for longevity. But surely I must be giving something up with them being the same price, like FSB, but what else?

Any ideas? Thanks

  • 3 Contributors
  • 6 Replies
  • 99 Views
  • 1 Day Discussion Span
  • Latest Post Latest Post by Suspishio

Dani AI

Generated

Quick, practical follow-up for now that the Q6600 is in the mix — the thread covered whether quads "matter," but the next questions are hardware compatibility and getting a stable build. Confirm the motherboard BIOS recognizes that specific Core 2 Quad model before seating the chip; many boards of that era needed a BIOS update to add support. Also check the board’s VRM cooling and the CPU power connector (4-pin or 8-pin) to avoid voltage/thermal limits under load.

Before first boot, install just the essentials: CPU, one matched DIMM in the recommended slot, PSU, and cooler. If it fails to POST, clear CMOS and try minimal components (this isolates bad RAM or seating issues). After POST, set memory timings to the RAM’s rated values in BIOS rather than leaving auto, then run Memtest86+ (overnight) to validate RAM. For CPU stability and thermals, run a CPU stress test (Prime95 small-FFT) while monitoring core temperatures with a hardware monitor utility; if temps or voltages look high, improve case airflow or upgrade the cooler.

If planning to overclock, raise the bus slowly, test thoroughly between steps, and watch motherboard VRM temps — many failures come from VRM overheating rather than the CPU itself. For software, pick a 64-bit OS if you want access to more than ~3–4 GB RAM and to avoid potential limits with older 32-bit kernels; otherwise, focus on faster single-thread performance for games or a quad for heavy multitasking and parallel apps.

This list keeps the practical, post-build risks front and center so the new system boots reliably and runs stable. It builds on points raised by and while staying focused on assembly, verification, and tuning.

Recommended Answers

All 6 Replies

Member Avatar for bradc1988

I picked up the quad so lets hope it all works when i put it all together

Member Avatar for Suspishio

I recently had the same choice to make and I also chose the same Quad as you. I have an application that can work across as many processors that you tell it and so 4 is better than 2.

Another point, I can do 4 things on my PC where the E6850 can do 2, albeit very quickly.

Finally, I chose XP 64 bit for the sound reason that 64 bit applications can use larger memory transfers and especially floating point operations in XP 64 are then 64 bit.

Member Avatar for jbennet

Xp doesnt use more than 2 cores or virtual cpus effectively. Quad core is a waste on XP.

Member Avatar for Suspishio

Xp doesnt use more than 2 cores or virtual cpus effectively. Quad core is a waste on XP.

Sage though you are, that's not quite the case.

XP Pro (32 bit or 64 bit) is constrained to 2 Processors, each with as many cores as are designed into each CPU. These constraints are not present on the more expensive Server versions of XP. Same goes for Vista.

Indeed I know this empirically because the 4 cores in the Q6600 deliver their results in just under half the time of the Core 2 Duo.

Quad core is NOT a waste on XP.

Member Avatar for jbennet

Its to with how XP allocates timeslices. 2003 uses a different model.

Member Avatar for Suspishio

Its to with how XP allocates timeslices. 2003 uses a different model.

There are differences between XP and Server 2003 on timeslice allocation. But that bites principally when you have to balance a stack of high demand background process with foreground processes (user applications).

In any case, you can vary the foreground or background priority in XP.

I repeat, the Q6600 scales performance fully where you have a multi-threaded application or one that can spread its load across CPUs. "Old" single threaded applications will be distributed across the 4 cores and that has to be better than 2 cores.

Of course, a single "old" single threaded application won't work any better on a dual core processor save for the fact that background processes have the other core available. With quad core it's obvious that the single threaded application has a better chance to run.

If I'm wrong, where's the evidence to be found?

Be a part of the DaniWeb community

We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.