Need to get a new computer. I have a pentium 4 computer and it slows a ton when i run HUD since i play 24 tables.

Someone tells me Quad Core would do the job. i also see a processor like icore 3, icore 5 and i core7. I heard these are better than Quad core. Is this true?However, i read that Icore3 is just a single core or something like that and a Quad core processor may be faster.

Thoughts? I don't know a damn thing about computers. The icore3 thing i wrote was what i read online but don't know what it means.

Would Quad Core be the best option for running 24 tables with HEM and Hud on? More specifically, its my HUD that causes my computer to be slow. HEM doesn't seem to cause it to slow

The I-core is more advanced technology and they are faster than quadcores.

Your friend however is right, a Quad Core would do the job, however, the difference in price between a quadcore and an I-core is so small that you might as well get the newest technology available.

Also, post this on the technical support forum. They might be able to help you better.

Is there a chance the i core might not be as fast as a quad core?

lol

The intel Core 2 Quads are "fake" quad cores, what they really are is two Core 2 Duos on a single chip. The i5 and i7 processors are quad cores, and the i3's are dual cores. Some of the old Qxxx Core 2 Quads are faster than some of the i5 and i7 processors (in terms of raw clock speed), but you'd still be better off with an i series.

In all honesty any of the processors would work just fine, you'd probably be better off buying a lower end i5 if you want a quad, or an i3 if you'll settle for a dual (nothing wrong with this at all)

Its not likely that your needs require a quad core, so the i3 would definitely suffice, but i5s are not that much more expensive.

http://www.dell.com/content/topics/t...=19&l=en&s=dhs

Is this a Quad core or a fake quad core?



So I'm assuming this is the real quad core?
http://www.dell.com/content/topics/t...=19&l=en&s=dhs

The Q8300 in the first like is a "fake" quad core... that said I may have left you with the wrong impression... theres nothing wrong with a Core 2 Quad, they're excellent processors and can be bought cheap nowadays thanks to the i7.

The i3 in the second link is a dual core, but its the same architecture as the i5 and i7 quad cores. That being Intel's newer platform.

I'm running an AMD tri-core(Phenom II X3 720), works fine tbh. I think the high-end duo core Intels would be better than most Quads. i5 isn't that much faster than the high end quad or duo cores, just the i7 series is a bunch faster.

IIRC, quad cores are more useful when you run a whole bunch of different programs at the same time, duo cores are better when you use 1 or 2 programs that take a whole bunch of CPU-load.

Also think about the difference in price. The i-series requires different mobo and RAM, which is a lot more expensive. I can't imagine you'd have trouble with the higher end Intel Duo's, and mobo's and RAM is much cheaper for that. Personally I like AMD, but I guess that's just a matter of taste, mostly.

Taking a second look, the one with the i3 in your second link is a beautiful computer for the price. A word of warning though, its using integrated graphics. If you want to play any video games on it that require graphics acceleration... you'll be out of luck with either of the machines that you linked.

I dont play any video games or games at all. Would you recommend the 2nd one then?

So the 2nd one is an i3 and that is better than the first one right? My friend told me the first one was quad core already.

Meh. The i3 is quite good still, but not better than the much older(and cheaper in a system) AMD Phenom II X3 720. Check this site out for reference: http://www.guruht.com/2010/01/intel-...nom-ii-x3.html

If you just want to buy a complete system and be done with it, I understand you want to go for dell. The core 2 Q series is faster than the i3, but a bunch more expensive. The second system is quite good for it's price, if you don't want to look around and do stuff yourself. I'd really suggest getting a video card upgrade though, because even if you're not going to be gaming, it's going to suck. Also, the HD is kinda of small, which is really cheap to upgrade, but if you really don't need more, just get the 320 gigs. I'd just get the 'performance plus' upgrade which is mentioned there on the site.

To be clear; the second one is NOT faster than the i3. The i-series is just Intel's newest technology, but only the i7 series is faster than the old core 2 Q high-end processors.

Isn't the 2nd one an i3? I posted up 2 links.

Uhh yeah. Woops. The first one I mean. The Core 2 Q8300 is faster than the i3.

Check out:

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php

remember to get a HDD with a fast write speed

So your telling me the Dell inspiron 560 with the Core 2 Q8300 is faster than the i3?

Then why does diabolic say thats a "fake" quad core?

Just to clear up any confusion.

Yes, Q8300 is faster than the i3. However, there's a ton of better options than the Q8300.

I assume diabolic says that's a 'fake' quad, is because most of the time not all cores will be used. The new 'i-series' technology takes much better advantage of the multiple cores. So, if you're not going to run a lot of different programs at the same time, the quad core will not be used optimally, and you pay a lot more for power you're not going to use. I'd still suggest getting a duo core, or the i3 here. The i3 in your link is pretty good bang for buck. The Q8300 in your other link is way too expensive for the power you're getting(using) imo.

Looking through the dell site, I think the Studio XPS 8100, standard edition is pretty interesting.

Includes a seperate GeForce graphics card with 512mb DDR3, an i5 processor than(better than the i3) and a bigger HD; for not that much more money, $650 total.

Other than that the i3 you selected was a pretty good offer, but I think you may run into problems because of the lack of a seperate good graphics card.

First off thats not entirely true. The i3 has 2.93? GHz cores, each individual core is faster. If you're running only two major processes (say HEM and Poker Client) then the advantage of having 2 additional cores is lost.

I say that because its quite literally two dual core processors on a single chip. It uses a two die architecture where as the i series uses a single die.

To OP... I think Lenny-T's suggestion here is probably your best bet.

Yeah I kind of implied it, although I probably should've specified. Good explanation, thanks.

Is the reason why my computer lags when HUD is on when 24 tabling is because my computer is a pentium 4? I bought this computer back in January 2006. It has 2GB ram and 2.8 Ghz but its a pentium 4.

Could be big a part, I always found p4 terribly slow. Another problem might be the HDD. My friend also 24 tables with a HUD. He was using a dual core and thought he needed a quadcore but turns out he was lagging because his hard drive slowed down a lot from fragmentation. He defragged and all good. But i'm guessing you are probably using a 5400 RPM HDD, that will also slow things quite a lot.

How would i know if im using a 5400 RPM HDD? Can i look for this other my computer somewhere?

www.anandtech.com
http://forums.anandtech.com/

Go here and post, what are you doing asking computer questions on 2+2?