Homuch of a performance increase going from dual to quad cpu?

[Clovis]

So I'm currently running an intel E6850 Dual core @ 3.00ghz, 8gigs of ram, 64bit vista and a Geforce 8600 GTS running 5 copies on WOW on dual monitors.

I upgraded the ram from 4 gigbs to 8 and saw some improvement but someone had suggested the dual core cpu may be a bottle neck.

I can keep my motherboard (which supports both 65 and 45 specs) and upgrade just the CPU to a Quad Q9400 @ 2.66ghz - http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...IN#detailspecs

So a lower speed but 4 instead of 2; what kind of performance boost do you think I'll see? A minor or a major improvement?

Thanks,

-Clov

[turbonapkin]

The move to quad core will give you the ability to handle much higher total load for all of your clients if you spread the processes out across all four cores. You will notice a marked improvement in high load situations such as cities, battlegrounds and raids.

[spannah]

Four cores at 2.66 will be better then two at 3.0

Think about the following (probably lame example):
There is a couple of dudes who can make 3 hamburgers each in one minute. There is also a group of four slackers that only make 2 hamburgers each in one minute.
After one minute the first group made 6 burgers while the second made 8 burgers.

Now I am hungry ...

[king.pa]

I switched from a E6600 @ 3Ghz (OC) to a Q9550 @ 2,83 Ghz (stock) and it was a giant slap on my face .... then I OC'ed up to 4 Ghz (471 x 8,5 on a Gigabyte EP45-UD3P ) and It was the same huge slap again ...
then I builded a Raid0 array and again .. another f...g slap on my face .. it hurt .. but this is gooood

Edit : acording to this, you can expect 3,4 Ghz @ 400 Mhz FSB with the Q9400 ...

[king.pa]

edit : rrrr no way to erase double posts... the delete button is non functionnal

[Bovidae]

I love the burger flipper analogy, it's too accurate.

But roughly; dual core X 3.0 = 6 ghz of processor power. Quadcore (even a stock Q6600) is 2.4x4=9.6ghz. You can see the potential to get more burgers made.

[wowphreak]

Four cores at 2.66 will be better then two at 3.0

Think about the following (probably lame example):
There is a couple of dudes who can make 3 hamburgers each in one minute. There is also a group of four slackers that only make 2 hamburgers each in one minute.
After one minute the first group made 6 burgers while the second made 8 burgers.

Now I am hungry ...

But If if they only ordered 5 burgers it aint gonna make a difference :P
But if the guy making the patties cutting the tomatoes/lettuce can only make enough for 4 a minute...

the way to check whether or not yer cpu is the bottle neck is to check the task manager if both cores are pegged constantly then yes.

[Sajuuk]

You forget they slice the tomatoes and lettuce in the morning before making the hamburgers.

(I work at Wendy's. I flip the burgers. Rawr!)

[Hor]

Four cores at 2.66 will be better then two at 3.0

Think about the following (probably lame example):
There is a couple of dudes who can make 3 hamburgers each in one minute. There is also a group of four slackers that only make 2 hamburgers each in one minute.
After one minute the first group made 6 burgers while the second made 8 burgers.

Now I am hungry ...

I'd gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.

[Owltoid]

471 x 8,5 on a Gigabyte EP45-UD3P[/url] ) and It was the same huge slap again ...
then I builded a Raid0 array and again .. another f...g slap on my face .. it hurt .. but this is gooood

Edit : acording to this, you can expect 3,4 Ghz @ 400 Mhz FSB with the Q9400 ...

I'm not sure the context you're using giant slap in your face. Was it good? Was it an upgrade? Or was is a slap in your face as in money wasted and not the performance you'd expect? Very confusing...