+- XBMC Community Forum (http://forum.xbmc.org)
+-- Forum: Help and Support (/forumdisplay.php?fid=33)
+--- Forum: XBMC General Help and Support (/forumdisplay.php?fid=111)
+---- Forum: Linux and Live support (/forumdisplay.php?fid=52)
+---- Thread: Build options Faster Core 2 Duo or Slightly Slower Core 2 Quad? (/showthread.php?tid=39398)
Build options Faster Core 2 Duo or Slightly Slower Core 2 Quad? - jeremymc7 - 2008-10-23 05:38
How is the current builds working with multiple cores?
I'm strictly interested in the most stable 1080P I can get and considering what type of CPU is going to better utilized by XBMC-Linux.
Whats going to be the performance difference between say:
3.0GHz Core 2 Duo
or
2.4GHz Core 2 Quad
Obviously the Duo is notably faster is the current builds don't utilize a Quad effectively. However it the builds do then the Quad should be WAY faster.
Thoughts?
- malloc - 2008-10-23 06:14
Get both?
- xgrep - 2008-10-23 17:34
ffmpeg won't utilize more than 2 cores... so faster dual for sure.
- BLKMGK - 2008-10-24 03:37
Go dueal, if quads ever make sense the "slower" quads will be cheaper and an easy "upgrade". My quad stomps for encoding over my dual but that is only because I can use all cores. On stuff that cannot the dual is faster. XBMC cannot use more than two so....
- y_so_serious - 2008-10-24 05:15
Why not just save a little more money and go with the faster quad! then you will have the best of both worlds. Happy XBMC, happy fast encoding and maybe you will not need to upgrade in the not too distant future!
- malloc - 2008-10-24 05:42
Quads are future proof, but slow now. If you get both, you'll have the best of both worlds.
- BLKMGK - 2008-10-24 22:34
Fast quads cost more than fast duals - they are also generally hotter and do not overclock as easily. By the time a quad is able to be fully utilized the expensive quads now that we might want will be cheaper, I still say go with a fast dual.
- malloc - 2008-10-24 23:12
I still say get both.