Results 1 to 10 of 42
Thread: Quad or not to Quad
-
12-23-07, 07:54 PM #1
Quad or not to Quad
Well i am getting 250$ for a new processor for christmas, and i wanted to ask what yall think. I am pretty sure the best course of action but wanted to see if i was in the right frame of mind.
Quad, 1066 FSB, 2.4 GHz, 2 x 4M
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115017
Dual, 1333 FSB, 3.0GHz, 4M shared
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115028
i think the best course of action is the faster possessor with fewer cores, because i dont need them and the two will run faster with the game applications i use, that are the most strenuous. am i thinking about this the right way or should i consider the quad core?
-
-
12-23-07, 09:08 PM #3
Re: Quad or not to Quad
http://www.texasteamplayers.com/inde...9658#msg339658
This thread explores your dilemma in depth.
It takes some time to read, but they answered my question. I am about to head down the path...
-
-
12-25-07, 12:45 AM #5
Re: Quad or not to Quad
Originally Posted by sacredsarcasm
Games in particular tend to only use 1 core at this time. BioShock is the only game I know of currently that is multi core optimized and it is optimized for dual, not quad core. The next Unreal Tournament is going to be dual core optimized also. But games that use quad core let alone require it are not even on the horizon yet.
The quad core will benefit you if you run a whole bunch of things at one time. The system will launch new processes on whichever core is being less utilized at the time. A few specialized applications are optimized so they can be "multi-threaded" and run parallel processes on multiple cores at once. But the vast majority of games and other software do not take advantage of multicore processors.
In my opinion quad core is luxury and a bragging point for those with money to burn. Save yourself some dough and go dual core. By the time true multi core software is widely available todays quad cores will probably be less than buff.
-
12-25-07, 12:58 AM #6
Re: Quad or not to Quad
Originally Posted by SoySoldier
-
12-25-07, 01:19 AM #7
Re: Quad or not to Quad
Originally Posted by Blue_Thunder27
Originally Posted by Blue_Thunder27
I cannot find a single case of a quad core processor costing the same as it's equivalent dual core.
They are all at least 100 dollars more for the equivalent Ghz and L2 Cache size.
Also, the dual core processors have faster busses across the board.
2 more cents from somebody who did the research.
-
-
12-25-07, 01:38 AM #9
Re: Quad or not to Quad
q6600 vs e6850: 3dmark06 Benchmark
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_20...=871&chart=419
From somebody who did the research.
-
12-25-07, 02:06 AM #10
Re: Quad or not to Quad
Originally Posted by Blue_Thunder27
Originally Posted by Blue_Thunder27
Ok, so its like this: it has four workers, and the other has two who are faster. Sure if I have 8 jobs to do, I would rather have the four slightly slower workers, but when I have one or two jobs to do, the two win out. The game only needs one worker. So should you give it one slower worker, or one faster worker?
3dMarks are nice when saying "my system pwns yours" but they dont really describe how well that system will run a single threaded game with xfire in the background.
I will openly admit that the Quad core processors will smash the Dual cores when running a whole bunch of things at one time, or running truly multi threaded apps. But I doubt anyone here is doing that. They are playing games and running Xfire or doing something equivocal.
Here is the e6850 outperforming the q6600 at a game
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page15.html
Here it is outperforming quads at yet another game:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page14.html
and another
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page16.html
and another, top of the chart.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page17.html
Quad core won this one, UT 2004. but only by a hair
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page18.html
Oh snap, E6850 back on top at yet another game
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page19.html
And again at Itunes, E6850 on the top
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page20.html
ooops, q6600 winning for HDTV playback.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page21.html
How about Divx transcoding? no quads on top here...
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page22.html
E6850 on top again, this time DVD cloning
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page23.html
Ahh.. finally, the Q6600 gets a leg up in MPEG2 to H.264 encoding
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page24.html
And again the Q6600 is on top at Adobe Premier
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page25.html
Oh but with pinnacle studio 11 plus the E6850 comes back out on top of the Q6600
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page26.html
And again on AVG AV
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page27.html
And again for winrar
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page28.html
Top of the list again for PPT to PDF
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page29.html
Shucks, quad cores have it for Deep Fritz 10 Chess
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page30.html
Here it is again at the top of the chart rendering in CS3
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page31.html
Q6600 takes it for 3DS Max
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page32.html
And Qcores win again at Cinema 4d
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page33.html
And we already know it (the Q6600) wins 3dmark06
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page34.html
Q6600 wins PCmark05 CPU but not Mem where the E6850 tops the list
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page35.html
Q6600 wins for some CPU multithread MFLOP tests
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page36.html
E6850 Better at floating point memory operations
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page37.html
And better at integer memory operations
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page37.html
Another multithreaded CPU test goes to the Q6600
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page38.html
and again to the Q6600
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page38.html
Awwww.. how cute, they tie for Windows Experience - Memory at 5.9
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page39.html
Rats, my E6850 was beat fro Windows Experience - CPU
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/...07/page39.html
and finally, at the end of the CPU comparison:
"If you are about to purchase a new platform, we recommend going for one of the latest chipsets (Intel P35, G33, Nvidia nForce 6 series) and probably one of those FSB1333 processors. " -from tomshardware
So, out of 25 comparisons the Quad cores take 6. Note they beat the dual cores at multi-threaded applications and battery style CPU tests. Note also that the Dual core won out on not only more tests, but tests of commonly used applications and games. Note also, that the toms review recommends the 1333 bus CPUs; the dual cores.
And I could keep doing this for a lot of different applications and games. So, do you wanna get your frag on as hard as you can? or do you wanna say "I got 1000 more 3d marks!"
Are you running multi threaded software all the time or playing games and surfing the net?
How is that for research? 2 more cents.
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks